• Version
• Download 72
• File Size 401.77 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date April 1, 2025
• Last Updated April 1, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 01 APRIL 2025 Vol. 51 No. 39

 

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Tuesday, 1^st April, 2025

The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.

PRAYERS

(THE HON. SPEAKER in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE HON. SPEAKER

DEATH OF HON. FARAI TARUVINGA

         THE HON. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House of the death of Member of Parliament for Insiza North Constituency, Hon. Farai Taruvinga on Monday, 31^st March, 2025. I therefore, invite Hon. Members to rise and observe a minute of silence in respect of the late Hon. Member of Parliament. May his soul rest in eternal peace.

         All Hon. Members observed a minute of silence.

 INVITATION TO A HALF-DAY WORKSHOP

 

THE HON. SPEAKER: I wish to inform the House that all Hon. Members are invited to a half-day workshop for the Portfolio Committees on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Energy and Power Development to unpack international agreements on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investment between Zimbabwe and Belarus and the establishment to our SADC Centre for Renewable Energy and the Energy Efficiency on Thursday, 3^rd April, 2025, in the Multi-Purpose Hall at 8.00 a.m. Please take into account traffic congestion so that you are here on time.

         May I also indicate that we have found these interfaces very constructive and beneficiary because it plays the ground for your conversation with the proposed Bills or the International Trade Agreements. So, it is a departure from the practice that Hon. Ministers just present here and we have no time to interrogate those international agreements. Please attend accordingly. 

         HON. S. SAKUPWANYA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir and good afternoon. I rise on a point of national interest to express my sincere appreciation following the hosting of the Inaugural Youth Model of Parliament by the Parliamentary Youth Caucus, a landmark event aimed at enhancing young people’s understanding of parliamentary procedures, fostering leadership skills and cultivating the vibrant youth engagement in participation in Government and in advancing national interests. This initiative has not only provided a platform for young people to be conversant with legal legislative processes but has reinforced the fundamental values of democracy, dialogue and national development.

         It is a commendable effort to cultivate the new generation of informed and responsible leaders for the sake of Zimbabwe’s future.  The youth model of Parliament drew over 280 young people from across the ten provinces, various political affiliations, student leaders and persons with disabilities aligning with the country’s mantra of leaving no one and no place behind. The model of Parliament provided the platform that facilitated public access and involvement in parliamentary processes allowing the young people to influence motions, debates and questions that will come in this august House.

         The issues raised by various young people are going to inform us on the topical areas which I would like to just state in terms of the themes that they debated and resolved around. The first theme being addressing unemployment in a bid to tackle drug and substance abuse. The second theme being the inclusion of youth in governance and expansion of the youth quota to all levels of governance and the third theme being the introduction of IT-tech AI as a stand-alone curriculum in Vocational Training Centres while reprocessing our post offices into centres of data excellence for the same cause.

         It was resolved therefore, that these themes will be moved by the young Members of Parliament in actual Parliament as motions and topical, it was further resolved with your indulgence, that the youth model Parliament be made an annual programme. With that, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to yourself, our human encyclopedia for allowing us to be able to perform such a programme in this august House.

         I further extend my gratitude to the Members of Parliament here present, the 46 Members of the Parliamentary Youth Caucus for their presence where they also benefited from learning what it feels like to be on the answering end as our ministers do every Wednesday afternoon. This capacitated not only the youths who came to Parliament but also gave us the young Members of Parliament here present, confidence to be able to debate more and be involved more in our nation building process. With that, I thank you.

         THE HON. SPEAKER: Well-done Hon. Sakupwanya for that launch which was well attended and very inclusive of all provinces of Zimbabwe. Well-done.

         HON. S. SAKUPWANYA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.

HON. MUTIMBANYOKA: Mr. Speaker Sir, I rise today to express my heartfelt gratitude to the people of Zimbabwe for their wise decision to ignore and refrain from participating in the failed demonstrations scheduled for March 31, 2025. I commend our patriotic citizens for the maturity they have shown in rejecting this unfortunate call, which was intended to destabilise our nation. It is encouraging to see that our people understand the potential consequences of taking to the streets and disrupting the flow of business.

While it is undeniable that grievances exist in any society, we must recognise that there are far more constructive ways to address our concerns than through actions that threaten to undermine the progress that we have worked so hard to achieve. It is essential that we seek peaceful avenues for resolutions that foster dialogue and unity rather than division. Demonstrations by their nature can be counterproductive and may inadvertently lead to chaos and instability, ultimately harming the fabric of our society and our collective welfare.

Let us focus on dialogue, cooperation and peaceful solutions to our issues. If ever there is any need at all to express our concerns, let us embrace alternative means that encourage constructive conversations and collaboration. By working together, we can build a stronger and more united Zimbabwe. We can address our challenges in a manner that reinforces our nation and upholds the values we cherish, ensuring that our voices are heard and respected. As former South African President Nelson Mandela wisely stated, “it always seems impossible until it is done”. Meanwhile, meaningful and positive change is achievable through peaceful means.

Yesterday, the people of Zimbabwe chose this path and I commend them for that bold decision. Our President often reminds us that, “Nyika inovakwa nevene vayo” - the nation is built by its own people. We must heed this clarion call.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all progressive parliamentarians in this House, I urge our citizens to engage in discussions that promote understanding and unity rather than divisions. Together we can work towards a brighter future for everyone, building our nation stone by stone, brick upon brick.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow countrymen for their commitment to a peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe. Thank you for prioritising our nation above all else and for safeguarding the well-being of our motherland. I thank you and I so submit.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you very much Hon. Mutimbanyoka. Speakers from the Chair normally do not speak, but what you have raised is the question of freedom of expression and freedom of the media and this is paramount. However, there is a provision in Section 61 (5) of the Constitution which clearly provides as follows; Freedom of expression and freedom of the media exclude-

 (a) incitement to violence;

(b) advocates for hatred or hate speech;

(c) malicious injury to a person's reputation or dignity;

(d) malicious or unwarranted breach of a person's right to privacy.

So, freedom of expression and freedom of media is not absolute.

^*HON. KARUMAZONDO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. My point of national interest is directed to the welfare of the ZIMRA employees. ZIMRA employees do a very splendid job of collecting revenue for the country. In their line of duty, sometimes we understand that some of them end up being unscrupulous and do not submit all the money and end up engaging in corruption. We understand that some of their duties include processing duty-free items for us parliamentarians as well as civil servants.

So, my request is may the ZIMRA employees also be allowed to import their vehicles duty-free so that at least that way, they may be motivated and may not end up in corruption? I thank you.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Thank you. I think the Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion will follow your request accordingly.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Mr. Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day Numbers 1 and 2 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until Order of the Day Number 3 has been disposed of.

HON. C. MOYO:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

LEGISLATION TO PROTECT VENDORS

HON. TSVANGIRAI:  Good afternoon, Honorable Speaker.  I move the motion in my name that;

 

COGNISANT that all institutions and agencies of government at every level have to endeavour to facilitate rapid and equitable development and fair allocation of resources to achieve balanced development;

ACKNOWLEDGING the critical role played by vendors in the development and creation of economic opportunities among communities, particularly in urban areas; 

MINDFUL that the State has an obligation to provide support to its citizens and in particular to empower vendors rather than impede on their developmental activities;

CONCERNED at the loss of vendors’ merchandise which is usually confiscated by local authorities and the loss of trading spaces depriving them of their livelihoods;

DISTURBED by the absence of protective legislative measures for such vendors who are normally left at the mercy of local authorities;

NOW, THEREFORE, calls upon this House to enact legislation that:

1. designates Vending Zones.
2. provides for a Vendor Registration Process; and
3. protects against arbitrary confiscation of vendors’ merchandise.

HON. MAKUMIRE: I second.

HON. TSVANGIRAI:  Honorable Speaker, I rise today not just to present a motion but to speak on behalf of millions of hard-working Zimbabweans who struggle daily to make an honest living, our vendors. These are the men and women who wake up at the crack of dawn, who brave the scorching sun and pouring rain, who walk the streets of our cities and towns selling goods just to put food on the table of their families. They are not criminals and they are not a problem to be dealt with. They are entrepreneurs, job creators, survivors in an economy that has offered them no formal employment opportunities. Yet, Honorable Members, through you, Mr. Speaker Sir, how do we treat them? We push them off the streets, we confiscate their goods and we destroy their dignity.

Reality on the ground, I ask each of you to picture this. A widowed mother of three selling tomatoes on the streets, hoping to make enough to pay school fees, only for her entire stock to be confiscated by local council. What is she supposed to do? Start over with nothing? A young university graduate unable to find a job, selling mobile phone accessories to survive yet chased away and treated like a criminal.  Is this how we reward hard work?

Mr. Speaker Sir, a father who has spent the last 20 years vending just to send his children to school only to have his entire store destroyed overnight with no compensation. What justice is there in that? This is the daily reality of vendors in Zimbabwe. Over 60% of the workforce is in the formal sector and many of them are street vendors.  According to the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, the informal sector contributes more than 40% of our national GDP yet these people are treated as though they do not matter. If we continue down this path, we are not just destroying businesses, we are destroying lives, dreams and the very fabric of our society. Honourable Speaker Sir, we are not the first nation to deal with informal trading.

Mr. Speaker Sir, many countries face the same challenges and found solutions. Why can we not find solutions? For example, in Kenya, they recognised that vendors are an integral part of the economy. They introduced designated vending zones in cities like Nairobi, ensuring vendors have legal places to operate.  This has reduced conflict with authorities while allowing vendors to contribute to tax revenue. In South Africa, they created formal street trading policies that regulate but also protect vendors. The Government introduced trading permits and public vending spaces ensuring vendors are part of the economy rather than being pushed out.

India took a bold step and passed the Street Vendors' Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act in 2014, which legally recognises vendors, prevents arbitrary evictions and establishes negotiated solutions between vendors and local authorities. As a result, vendors in cities like Mumbai and Delhi are now operating without fear of losing their goods overnight. If these countries can empower their vendors, why should we continue to punish ours? What this motion calls for, Honourable Speaker, is not about removing regulation but it is about bringing order and fairness to vending.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the motion calls for designated vending zones so vendors have safe, legal places to trade without fear or eviction. Secondly, a vendor registration process so that vendors are recognised, can contribute to taxes and benefit from policies designed to support them. Thirdly, it seeks to protect against arbitrary confiscation so that hard-working Zimbabweans do not lose their entire livelihood overnight.

Hon. Members, this is not just a moral and economic obligation and this is not just an economic issue but a moral one. How do we justify standing while mothers and fathers lose everything to unfair, unregulated enforcement? How do we explain to our people that in a country where formal jobs are scarce, we criminalise those who try to make an honest living? Each of us in this Chamber knows a vendor. Maybe it is a sibling, a cousin, an aunt or an old school friend.  Maybe  it is someone who once had a formal job but was forced into vending when the economy collapsed. When we ignore their plight, we betray them. When we pass policies that destroy their livelihoods, we betray them.  When we fail to act today, we betray the future of Zimbabwe. A call to action, let us rise above politics and focus on the people we serve.

Let us create a Zimbabwe where vendors are protected, where businesses flourish and where they can contribute proudly to the economy without fear of being chased away like criminals. I urge each and every one of you to support this motion, not for me, not for any political party but for the hard-working Zimbabweans who deserve fairness, dignity and the opportunity to thrive. I thank you, Honourable Speaker – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] -

THE HON. SPEAKER.  Thank you very much, Honourable Tsvangirai. Before I put the question, I once again notice that there are few Members in the House. Last time I had encouraged that Committees should go out on public hearings, let us say on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays where even the public is not at work, you can maximise on that arrangement.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Mr. Speaker, we have actually proposed that before and the feedback we got was that the buck stops with the Honourable Speaker. So, it is confusing that you are speaking like that.  It means you need to talk to…

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, it means you have a wrong source of information.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  It is your team, so you have to put your house in order.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, otherwise, I would not be making this statement, I will be creating the contradiction of the worst order. I repeat, the buck does not stop with me. The buck stops with someone else.  I am instructing that Committees must carry out their public hearings on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, so that they are able to attend parliamentary business here all the time – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] - So, Honorable Molokela-Tsiye, you have heard it from me.  If you hear it again from someone else, please raise the alarm.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  As you wish, Honorable Speaker. Thank you. Twalumba loko Hon. Speaker you are very clear.  Thank you.

         *HON. MAKUMIRE:  Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to debate on the motion raised by Hon. Tsvangirai. The issue of ill-treatment of street vendors in other places in the country is so touching, especially looking at the problems that they encounter. If we think deeply about it and go back and try to question those who harass these vendors, what sort of life do they lead because in this country everyone sells something? – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - May you please protect me Mr. Speaker Sir?

*HON. ZIKI: On a point of order, the Hon. Member is not specifying what he is really talking about in terms of selling out because if we agree, it is as if we are siding with some of the sellers that we know. So, he must be specific.

*THE HON. SPEAKER: Order! We will follow what is written on the Order Paper as well as the background from the motion raised by Hon. Tsvangirai.  It is about selling wares or goods. If you sell goods, you are a vendor. If only it was about the liberation struggle, yes, then that context changes to sellouts. So, Hon. Makumire is correct. Please go ahead.

*HON. MAKUMIRE: Thank you Mr. Speaker for protecting me.

What I was trying to highlight is that the majority of Zimbabweans are living through vending. People sell different things. Some of them just sell their goods under designated areas. In the past, there were laws that would bar people from selling anywhere. Those laws were very applicable in those days because the country had a lot of industries that were operating. Most of the people were formerly employed and people would choose jobs. If you lose your job today, the next day you would get another. Whatever happened has led to where we are right now. Most of the industries have closed in Bulawayo, Harare and in most cities in the country. Most people lost their jobs.

Most of the people are graduating from the universities with no employment . Some of the graduates are supposed to be employed by now and looking after their families but right now, it is not happening in the country. This has led to people resorting to vending on the streets and other people's shops.

Looking at how we took this phenomenon, it looks like our mindset was still programmed to how life was in the past but right now, both the municipal police as well as the ZRP are chasing after vendors. The saddest thing is that there are various age groups among those people on the streets. Some of the people are disabled and it is so sad to see ZRP as well as municipal police chasing after someone with crutches.

In addition, you find very old people on the streets. It is as good as a child chasing after their mother or grandmother but according to our culture in this country, the elderly must be respected. What we are seeing on the streets shows that we have lost our culture and humanity. Measures should be taken for us to protect the majority of Zimbabweans who live out of vending. I am glad about the motion raised by the Hon. Member. We need to come up with laws that protect vendors wherever they conduct their business. It is so undignified that today you chase the vendors and tomorrow they come back. Street vending is not good because most of the times the vendors absorb the heat of the sun as well as the rains.

It is not out of pleasure but it is because of necessity that they come back every day. It is important that vendors must have special places or sites constructed specifically for them as a matter of urgency. Those designated areas must be places where customers may come.

The reason why some of those places are abandoned is because they are far away from customers. Vendors tend to go to where people pass through. The location of those markets is not appropriate. In India, in 2014, there was a law that was enacted for street vendors and they are protected that way. They are supposed to be registered under a specific ministry.   That way, if the Government wants revenue from them, it becomes easy because there is a database. At the end of the month, the revenue collectors have their work easier because this country is surviving on vendors. If we do not organise better ways of making them work in an organised fashion whereby we do not chase after them, they will contribute that way through taxes.

I do not have much more words but my wish is that vendors must be reduced on the roads. Our country must resuscitate closed down factories and industries. It must ensure that businesses operate properly because most companies were closing and are struggling to operate in this country. Look at companies that were closing, for example, food outlets. If this continues, the whole country will end up on the streets. So, as a country we must do whatever we need to do to restore the glory of the country.

Mr. Speaker, you know that there was a time when things were very good in the country, from 2009 to 2014. People left vending on their own because the economy had improved. We must be considering those things and see how we can get back to those times so that the country may rejoice again.

As I wind up, it is very important that when the local authorities are making their master plans that focus on how they will grow, they must consider the expansion of vendors. Those layout plans are very important to be made so that they plan accordingly. Some places should be designated for businesses and others for residential purposes. Wherever there is such a plan, we must increase vending sites because that is the source of livelihood for the majority.

*HON. TOGAREPI: I would like to thank Hon. Tsvangirai for the motion which speaks about vendors that they are people that we should accept as a country and indeed they exist. We must respect them because they play a very pivotal role in the development of the economy. Before I go deeper into my debate, I would like to say that the ones that we call vendors are not in the same category with those we call sellouts. These ones sell goods, food and clothes. Each time I am going to talk about vendors, I am not referring to sellouts because vendors do so as a source of livelihood.

Vendors are not only found in Zimbabwe but they are found in every country working and selling their goods in designated places. They are not supposed to be selling everywhere and under premises being operated by others who have bought those places or paying rentals on those areas because they also have plans to ensure that the premises must be presentable - yet those vendors come and sell in such areas disturbing those who put up their shops to sell goods.

In addition, they may have constructed their building according to the bye-laws of the local authorities and done everything to ensure that they operate.  However, some people just come up and set up. I think the problem comes from the local authority leaders, they just want money and do not consider order. They do not consider that we are operating in an orderly way. When they just go collecting money, they even go to places where vendors are operating under some people's premises. When they do not get enough money, they start chasing after them. So, the local authority leaders are the ones who are causing these problems to the vendors because they are not supposed to accept or allow other people to operate in front of other people’s shops or business premises.

*HON. HWENDE: Point of Order. The Hon. Member is being requested to speak to the motion. If he wants to bring up another motion on businesses, let him do so.

*THE HON. SPEAKER: Where is he lost? Where did the Hon. Member get lost? That is not my opinion. You can continue Hon. Togarepi.

*HON. TOGAREPI: Thank you Mr. Speaker for protecting me from my kinsman, although we think differently. Three weeks ago, the President invited vendors on the streets and asked to hear the opinion of the vendors on what they want the Government to do for them to ensure that they operate legally and in an orderly way. We are a country, we have visitors and sometimes some roads are even closed because of vendors. Even if they get their livelihood out of that, they are not supposed to disturb other people going about their businesses.

The President encouraged the vendors to register, just like any other business. Some of the vendors have very good businesses and they earn a lot of money, so they have the money. Since they are in business, what is wrong with registering? If they register, local authorities should then come up with vending stalls for them.

The President said we applaud the vendors because there is a lot of work they do and they contribute to the development of the country. However, that does not give them the authority or the right to operate in undesignated places. Some of them were now selling at night, they were no longer selling ordinary goods. They were now selling illegal stuff like mbanje and mutoriro.  That affects society, they affect the youth because they were now buying from them, these illicit substances. Some of those who operate as vendors, are foreigners. Vending is meant for locals but foreigners then come up and start selling in those undesignated areas. So, the President emphasised that as you do your work, operate legally.

Even the vendors accepted and agreed to the President that they wish to have properly built and constructed areas. So, it is a very important motion raised by Hon. Tsvangirai. As leaders in this House, why do we not sit down with the leaders of the local authorities, so that vendors can get properly designated places that do not affect other businesses.  It is not that vendors do not have something else to do. Some of them are even Hon. Members of Parliament, who have stalls, vending in Parliament.  Some of them are managers of shops, releasing goods from their shops to sell under other people's premises. So, they must all respect other people's premises. Since they were given the opportunity to sit down together with the local authorities, we expect that they will be allocated properly designated places.  Some of them do not want to operate where they are supposed to pay money. They want to operate where they do not pay anything, yet they affect other businesses.

We cannot build a country where anyone just does whatever they want. Everyone must work with respect to the next person. So, I encourage local authorities as well as the Members of Parliament in the urban areas to sit down and find good operating spaces for the vendors. Councillors in Harare, Bulawayo and Masvingo, wherever, sit down with the vendors and find a space where they operate without affecting other people who will be operating. Recently, some of the companies that were threatening to close, one of the explanations was that we no longer operate properly because there are vendors who are operating on their verandas, even if it was because of their mismanagement. So, what is wrong with us leaders looking for properly designated places for vending? I request you Hon. Members from both sides of the House to sit down; those in the urban areas, sit down with the local authorities, the leaders, as well as the vendors, so that you find places where they can operate.

Some of them are chased away because they have been allocated places to operate from but they prefer to operate in undesignated spaces. Sometimes local authorities get money from them and chase after them because they will not be operating from proper places. Hon. Tsvangirai’s motion does not seek to look for accusations amongst us, but seeks to proffer a solution to orderly operating by the vendors because that does not contribute to development. Let us have specific areas designated for vendors. They are supposed to pay small fees because they sell small goods or few goods but they must be registered. Instead of just operating and affecting traffic flow or people who will be walking, going about their business, as well as littering places. So local leaders should look into that. I thank you Madam Speaker Ma’am.

*HON. TAFANANA ZHOU: Thank you. Madam Speaker. I stand up to support the motion raised by Hon. Tsvangirai, seconded Hon.  Makumire.  The motion raised by Hon.  Tsvangirai comes at the right time after a week ago…

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order Hon. Zhou, please use one language.

*HON. TAFANANA ZHOU:  Last week the President, Hon. Mnangagwa, met with the Tuckshop Association Secretary, Comrade Lovemore Madzoke, as well as Bulawayo Vendors Association, Debra Mkasa at the State House, discussing these issues. They discussed a lot of issues and that is why we always encourage that indeed the President is an understanding President.  He has an open-door policy and he accepts everyone who comes. They had requests and they were received, but I am sure they will be addressed. I am sure Government likes everyone, including the vendors.

The President is not saying people must not sell, no but they must operate under designated places where they have ablution facilities. We would like to applaud the Government for the expertise. There is a vision with regards to vendors, they are supposed to be operating from designated places, as opposed to just operating anywhere, just like what the Hon. Chief Whip, Hon. Togarepi referred to. Shop owners need to have a good reason for paying licences. Let us, as Members of Parliament, encourage people that as they operate as vendors, they play a pivotal role in the economy, in the informal sector, they should contribute to the positive development of Government. If they sell anywhere, that way they will not contribute to the development of the country. Government with its expertise, finds it good that they should operate from designated places. That way, they will contribute to the development of the country since the country is built by its owners according to that mantra.

         What I encourage, as Parliament, let us have a long-sighted vision instead of going back. Yes, Hon. Tsvangirai raised this motion but as representatives, let us go back and inform people on Government’s vision so that we do not go back and forth. Since the President’s vision envisages development for people, which means if people sell anywhere and everywhere, they will not be able to attain that development. If they contribute positively according to Vision 2030 when the President will still be the President and no one rejects that because there is a vision that has been set forth which is pro-development. Let us not encourage people to go backwards but let us be far-sighted in line with Vision 2030 whereby they will be operating at designated places instead of operating from other people’s premises.

         HON. TOGAREPI: I move that debate do now adjourn.

         HON. C. MOYO: I second.

         Motion put and agreed to.

         Debate to resume: Wednesday, 2^nd April, 2025.

FIRST READING

MEDICAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 6, 2024]

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI) presented the Medical Services Amendment Bill [H. B. 6, 2024] which seeks to amend the Medical Services Act [Chapter 15.13] and provide for matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing.

         Bill read the first time.

         Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. ZIYAMBI): I move that Order of the Day Number 1 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until Order of the Day Number 2 has been disposed of.

         Motion put and agreed to.

COMMITTEE STAGE

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BILL [H. B. 2, 2023]

         Second Order read: Committee Stage: Persons with Disabilities Bill [H. B. 2, 2023].

         House in Committee.

         On Long Title:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Madam Chair. I do move my amendment to the Long Title. It is just to make it tighter, so that at least we seek to provide for the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities, that is the first point then followed by the rest. I have just tweaked the long title a little bit, but otherwise it speaks to the same. Thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. Hon. Mushoriwa just wants to be seen to be very meticulous. I think it is harmless, I agree with him.

Amendment to Long Title put and agreed to.

Long title as amended, put and agreed to

On New Preamble:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Madam Chair. The New Preamble seeks to enrich the Bill so that it directs us to the provisions of our Constitution and also the various international agreements that we are actually part to. It is just an enrichment to the Bill. Thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. Hon. Mushoriwa has been reading a lot of our statutes and he has seen this in the statutes and I think it is harmless. It does what he wants for the edification of the reader so that they can appreciate what we were trying to do as Parliament. I agree.

Amendment to New Preamble put and agreed to.

New Preamble as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 1 Short Title:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Madam Chair, on Clause 1, on the Short Title, I have just added a small thing so that instead of ‘this Act may be cited in the Persons with Disability Act Chapter…’,  I have also said that it should and I think it was an omission, this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the President by notice in the Gazette. The idea is because we are coming up with a new Bill, there is need for appointments to be done by the Government. You want to then allow a smooth take-off of this new creation that we are coming up with.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I agree it was an omission. He is very right.

Amendment to Clause 1 put and agreed to.

Clause 1 as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. On the interpretation, in the Bill we had the Chief Executive Officer. I am proposing that we substitute the CEO with the definition of a board which means the National Disability Affairs Board established in terms of Section 4 and be on commission on page 4 in the definition of Director. We delete that Section 52 and substitute with Section 5. I submit, Hon. Chair.

HON. MUSHORIWA: Madam Chair, I understand the submission by the Hon. Minister and you also appreciate that I also had my own amendments on this same Clause. However, the first thing that I needed to do is to speak to the amendments proposed by the Hon. Minister. The challenge that we face and which I think is the gist of this Bill, the people with disability or persons with disability in Zimbabwe, what they seek and what they want is a commission that oversees their affairs.  You understand that when the Bill passes through the various stages, the Cabinet Committee on Legislation, the Cabinet even when it was brought here, it had a commission.

         I am aware Hon. Minister that it may not change much but I think that satisfaction from the persons with disability and it has been a submission by people with disabilities that they need a commission. They actually feel that the commission, to just simply say there is a commission for disability, there are commissioners for disabilities, is weightier than the existence of a board.  They want to move away from the board so that at least there is a commission.

It does not matter Hon. Chair and Hon. Minister whether some of the functions mirror each other but the cry from the people with disability is that please can you elevate this organ to a commission. I wanted to reflect this by saying Malawi, which recently passed their Act, and Kenya, have also taken the same route to put it as a commission.  I am actually thinking that a commission is probably a better way to go Madam Chair and it also answers to what our people are crying for.

Having said that Madam Chair, part of my amendments sought to deal with the Chief Executive Officer whom the Hon. Minister is proposing to change.  I think we need to have a conversation on that. I  am proposing in the definition of convention in line 3 on page 4 of the Bill, to delete 206 and to substitute it, by adopting  by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13^th December 2006.  The idea is just to be elaborate so that whoever wants to refer can go back to the right protocol that we signed.

Between lines 4 and 8 on page 4 of the Bill, I wanted to delete the definition of disability, which I think, does not have a real issue. Then in line 13 on page 4, again this one I wanted to delete the definition of director.  So, you see the Hon. Minister wants the director, my feeling is that the Chief Executive Officer needs to remain.

Then the other one is in line 32 on page 4 of the Bill.  I wanted to delete the word ‘disabilities’ and to substitute with ‘a disability’. I think this one was a typo because you cannot say, a disability, it is a disability, so the change is a typo.

Then between lines 9 and 10 on page 5 of the Bill.  I wanted to insert the following sub-clause and the existing sub-clause (ii) being renumbered accordingly. Which says, where in this Act, duties are imposed on the Commission, the State or any institution or any agency of Government, the duties are to be fulfilled in good faith to the extent practicable in the light of resources available to the Commission, the State or the institution or agency concerned.

So, my cry therefore, to the Hon. Minister is let us maintain the Commission rather than to go to the Board. I think if we do the Commission, our people who are disabled will feel happy because they have a past or a history where we have had the Board and this acceleration to the Commission may do us well. So, I thank you, Hon. Chair.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Hon. Chair …

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): Before you respond, there is another Hon. Member to debate.

*HON. P. ZHOU:  Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, I also like to add to what Hon. Mushoriwa said pertaining to people with disabilities, that we are attending meetings.  I am also one of them. They said indeed we saw the Board but we want a Commission.  It gives us more dignity if it is put in place.

They are saying we should copy best practices. Why do we want to go back? We once did a Board and now we are expecting a Commission.  So, we want a Commission where each province will be represented.  The membership will be 11 or 12 and that way, it is much more dignified. This issue of a Board, Madam Chair, people with disabilities are refusing the Board.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Chair.  My worry is on whether we are defining, I mean, let us look at a board and a commission. Unless the commission is qualified as if the membership of the people living with disabilities are looking for an independent Commission because the words, Commission and a Board, are used interchangeably everywhere.  Unless we are saying the intention here is to come up with an independent Commission.

When we look at this structure that we are looking for, does it qualify to be an independent Commission? As far as I am concerned, it does not qualify. So, whether we call it a Commission or a Board, these two words are synonymous in my view.  I do not know, unless we are saying what is being advocated for in this Bill, is to come up with an independent Commission.  Does this Commission qualify to be a Chapter 12 Commission? If it does not, saying a Board or saying a Commission, it does not change anything, unless I am losing in terms of how we qualify a board and a commission, whether they are defined differently.  Unless we qualify it with a prefix to say it is an independent Commission.  I do not think this Board will qualify given the present laws.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Thank you Madam Chair.  I associate with the thinking that perhaps what we need is a commission.  I agree that a board and a commission are terms that are interchangeably used.  I was just looking at the definition, I just quickly looked at the definition of a Board and a Commission. It says the term Board and Commission are synonymous and are used interchangeably to refer to the independent bodies authorised by ordinance or statute to perform a particular function.

         If the terms are interchangeably used and there is a request from the community that is affected by the Bill to go for a commission, I think it is prudent and it is only okay for us as a House to adopt the commission because there is no difference between the two, a commission and board. The community that is affected is requesting to use the term commission for the purposes of empowering them. They are not advocating for an independent commission. In terms of our Constitution, our independent commissions are very clear but they are just advocating for a commission. We are saying a commission and a board are the same. I do not think we suffer any prejudice to go for a commission. I so submit.

HON. MALINGANISO: Thank you Madam Chair. The idea here should be whether a commission or a board will guarantee effectiveness. I was privileged to be part of those that solicited views on this Bill. What came out was the idea of an independent commission which cannot be equated to the current board. The problem with the suggested commission is that it seeks to be an independent commission with a secretariat of only five ministries, when disability in itself is a cross-cutting issue that requires that every ministry is represented. The problem here is if we say a commission, we should go to a commission with the proposed representatives, which will not be more than ten and that does not cover all the ministries.

The board we have currently touches all ministries. If we are really progressing, what we need is to guarantee the rights, not an issue where who has power and who is in a certain board and who is not. My submission Madam Chair, is I would not have a problem if the current board with its composition is called a commission, which in any case is not an independent commission.

If we seek a commission that seeks to empower, as I have heard from the previous presenter, which is about empowering the persons with disabilities to be in, we will be creating a problem where we are limiting the powers or the reach of the board that should be representing the persons with disabilities. My submission is that if we change the name we keep the representatives from across all ministries, I would not have a problem with that because we need persons with disabilities to be represented in every ministry, not that we limit the scope to just five ministries. I so submit and I thank you, Madam Chair.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Honourable Chair. I have listened to the submissions which basically entail that we must proceed. When we have finalised the issue of the functions of whatever they want to call it, board or commission, then we can come back and they tell us what is so attractive about the word commission. I gravitate towards what the Honourable said, that she looked up the definition. It is more or less the same but our purpose is not to confuse the public.

This is a board under the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare. We do not want to create a commission that believes that it is above the Minister. As a result, my proposal is I do not accept all the submissions by Hon. Mushoriwa. I am rejecting these amendments and propose that we proceed. When we have finished, we can then invite Hon. Mushoriwa to tell us the difference given the function of the board. What is critically important is, are disability issues covered in the functions of that organ that we are creating?

I had a meeting with the Minister of Labour, then Minister July Moyo and the representatives and we agreed on this. Our agreement led to the amendments that we are proposing. So, I am proposing that we proceed and I am rejecting the amendments that are being proposed by Hon. Mushoriwa and implore Hon. Members that we proceed in line with what Hon. Malinganiso said. When we have completed, we can then debate about whether it is fashionable to be called a commission or a board. Hon. Chair.

HON. MUSHORIWA: I think the Hon. Minister said we are...

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI. ZHOU: Hon. Mushoriwa, I have not recognised you yet. Order, Order!

Hon. Minister, you are rejecting everything that was said. Does that include the definition of persons with disabilities in line 32 on page 4, of the Bill to delete disability and substitute with disabilities?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, those are minor amendments that can be done by legal scrubbing, whether you say disability or disabilities. When they are doing the legal scrubbing, they normally take care of that. They do not change the import of what the Bill is saying. While I appreciate what he means by that, those are minor changes which we took note of. When they are doing the legal scrubbing, they will do that. Even if the Bill is passed, the law reviser can actually take care of that. That is my submission.

HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, I did not hear the Minister well. The Minister, in his submission, appeared to be saying we leave this and go to other clauses and then we come back when we have exhausted the other clauses. Maybe by then, we would have persuaded him to keep the commission.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, you suggest that we defer all this until we come to the point where they come in?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, I think we will waste time. We have had several meetings with the representatives and we agreed on these amendments. My proposal is I am rejecting what Hon. Mushoriwa is saying. What he discussed with those representatives that were outside the realm of what we discussed with the Minister of Labour and the representatives and proceed with making amendments that will give effect to the board.

HON. MUSHORIWA: I just wanted to raise something which the Hon. Minister needs to also take cognizance of. Whilst I appreciate that the Hon. Minister could have had consultations with other stakeholders, I want to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister that as late as last Friday, Members of Parliament were summoned by all the organisations that represent persons with disabilities. You heard Hon. Zhou articulating the position and the views. Maybe, that time you had the conversation, there had been an evolution that could have happened that made all these people gravitate towards the question of the need of a commission. As you have indicated, it does not change much. It is just a question of saying the board and it is now the commission. By the way, this is an important stakeholder. All of us here, every one of us is a potential person with disability.

We are not guaranteed tomorrow. So, because of that, I think this one, I implore the Hon. Minister that out there, the people with disabilities just want their committee to be called a commission. On Friday, the hall was full and every organisation was represented. I think there was an evolution, a change of mindset from that time until now.

HON. TOGAREPI: When we are making laws, we have procedures. Once we have done our public consultations, we get to a point where we are now, then you go back and do consultations. Outside the structure that is established in Parliament, I think somebody is misleading himself. For me, I think from what Hon. Hlatywayo said, these are synonymous. We can pick any of those words.  The Ministry is going to run with this because that one will create a grey area.

If you look at these Members, they have been looking for a Chief Executive who will have a budget. Once you have a Chief Executive, a budget and a commission, the understanding would be now we have an independent commission to the tune of Human Rights Commission or something. This is not what we are looking for here. We are looking for a structure under the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare to serve the interests of those people living with disability. So, we cannot push for a commission that will create confusion, even if the commission and board mean the same thing. Unless the intention, those who persuade for commission must tell us whether they are looking for an independent commission as defined by the law. If not, then why should we be worried about using commission or board? When you have the other Members saying we want a Chief Executive in the budget with everything, the confusion is already showing that if you use commission and have this view, you have a problem. That is my understanding.

While they are synonymous but there is again an inherent feeling that they want an independent commission, which is not being offered in this Bill. Why are we pushing a wave that will then confuse people whether they have an independent commission or is just board?

Clause 2 put and agreed to.

On Clause 3:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I am proposing amendments in my name. I am proposing that on Clause 3, we repeal Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the substitution will be the following.

“3 National Disability Affairs Board

(1) There is hereby established a board to be known as the National Disability Affairs Board which shall consist of—

• ten members appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted to him or her by organizations or associations which he or she considers represent persons with disabilities; and
• one member appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for local government; and
• one member appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for health; and
• one member appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for education; and
• one member appointed by the Minister from a list of not fewer than three persons submitted by an association or organization which the Minister, in consultation with the Minister responsible for the administration of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], considers represents employers in Zimbabwe; and
• one member appointed by the Minister from a list of not fewer than three persons submitted by an association or organisation which the Minister, in consultation with the Minister responsible for the administration of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], considers represents trade unions in Zimbabwe; and
• one member appointed by the Minister from among persons employed in his or her Ministry; and
• the Director of Disability Affairs who shall be an ex-officio member of the Board; (i) a member or members co-opted by the Board after consultation with the Minister:

                 Provided that the membership of the Board shall not exceed twenty.

• If any organization or association referred to in subsection (1) (b), (f) and (g) fails to submit a list of persons within a reasonable time after being called upon by the Minister to do so, the Minister may appoint as members in terms of the paragraph concerned any person whom he or she considers will adequately represent the interests of the organization or association which failed to submit the list.
• In appointing the members of the Board, the Minister shall pay due regard to the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Constitution.
• The Minister shall designate one member appointed in terms of subsection (1) to be the

Chairperson of the Board and designate another member appointed in terms of the same provision to be the Vice Chairperson and in so doing the Minister shall ensure that such office bearers are of different gender.

• The term of office of a member of the Board shall be four (4) years and a member’s appointment shall only be renewable once.
• The qualifications, terms and condition of service and vacation of office of members of the Board shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
• At any meeting of the Board a majority of its members shall constitute a quorum.
• The Minister may assign persons employed in his Ministry to perform such secretarial and administrative functions in connection with the Board as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): Order Hon. Minister! For the benefit of all the Hon. Members, please note that there is a WhatsApp group that has sent the Order Paper, so it is easy for you to follow. The Order Paper was sent this morning by one of the Clerk's officers. Please visit that group, the 10^th Parliament, go to the page and be able to follow. Thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, Hon. Chair. As it fully appears in the Order Paper, I submit to Hon. Chair. Thank you.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Madam Chair. My issue here is, if you look at Clause 3, subsection 1 to G, it gives autonomy and power to the Minister to make appointments as and when it pleases the Hon. Minister.

I was of the opinion that this Bill strategically affects the welfare of a vulnerable groups and does not necessarily have to do with security issues or whatever issues that may affect it. I thought maybe there was need to autonomise a group to ensure that some of the members are appointed directly by the vulnerable groups themselves, not necessarily through the Hon. Minister.

Secondly, I am of the opinion that this board is blotted. A board from this Act has got 17 members. From section 3 according to the amendments as provided by the Minister, it has got 17 members and it says that for the majority, it becomes corrupt. I think in the interest of quality decision-making, it is too blotted. Can we at least reduce it to maybe around 10 or 12, which is the normal in terms of ethics, in terms of the number that we have as board members and also in terms of decision-making? I submit.

HON. MUSHORIWA:  Thank you Madam Chair, if you notice, because the Hon. Minister seeks to deal with all these clauses 3, 4, 5 concurrently, I actually submitted my amendments. You will note that under the current Bill, the composition of the commission which the Minister prefers to call the board and which is adopted. My submission to the Hon. Minister starting from the composition of the board itself, I wanted the Hon. Minister to consider the following;

 The Minister is saying that there are going to be 10 members from the list, from the associations but I need to make sure that we come up with two members appointed by the Minister. These are in addition to what is there and I will tell you where we are going to remove. It says two members appointed by the Minister being persons with disabilities who do not belong to any organisation or association referred to in paragraph (a) in the amendment that the Minister is including.

Secondly, I also want the Hon. Minister to consider an additional one member appointed by the Minister who shall be a registered legal practitioner. I want the Hon. Minister to look on these amendments because the amendment seeks to limit this board to 20. In line with that, those three members that I mentioned would then come under, I, where a member or members co-opted by the board after consultation with the Minister so that we have three members that come in to make the board 19, then another member that can be co-opted by the board but the rationale is very simple. The reason why we need two who are not necessarily members of the association is to make sure that there is actually inclusivity because not everyone belongs to an association.  The other one that I am calling for, the one with legal background, is actually to guide the Commission.  Then the other tied amendment which I also thought was important, I am not so sure, I wanted to insert a sub-clause that speaks to the chairperson and the deputy chairpersons of this board as the Minister now wants it coming from different regions and also encompassing gender.    It is my proposal to the composition of the board itself which I think the Minister must take cognisance of and accommodate. 

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Madam Chair.  He raises valid points but a provision has been put in there for an allowance to have other members that represent exactly what he has said being coopted by the board, I submit.  

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  I just need clarity from the Hon. Minister.  Do you not think that there is something amiss in having a proviso which says that a board that has been done by the Minister then you allow that same board to then coopt other members?  It is like giving them an open cheque without guiding them. What is the basis upon which they have to coopt?  This is the reason why Hon. Minister, I am proposing that we can actually close that gap to make sure that we leave just one slot, the two slots go to those members who do not belong to an association and one who is a legal practitioner.  The one slot we could then say a member coopted by the board to fill a certain expertise after consulting the Minister but to then say four members that is almost a quarter of the board - to leave it to be appointed by the other people that have been appointed by the Minister.  I think it does not really make some sense to me. 

         HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Hon. Chair, in my view, there is no problem because there is a proviso already to say that when the board looks for a legal practitioner or expertise to assist the board, they consult the Minister and take that person on board.   It is not like all the expertise that we know will be needed by people living with disabilities.  When that expertise is needed, they make a decision as a board, I think that is how boards operate.  They always raise these issues, consult with the relevant Ministries seeking approval to make that decision to hire a person with the appropriate expertise they are looking for. We cannot have one expert, they may also need auditors, accountants, physiotherapists and so forth.  Who tells us that the big board has no legal practitioner?  Are we saying amongst members living with disabilities there are no lawyers?  They can have people with expertise so that they protect their interests.  Let us proceed Hon. Minister, let us discuss this when they indicate that they want experts. 

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I tend to be persuaded by the notion that we must not be very prescriptive on those who will be co-opted.  We should leave it to the board members as long as there is a condition to say that when they are co-opting, they should do it in consultation with the Hon. Minister, then it is okay.  Thank you Hon. Chair.   

         Amendment to Clause 3 put and agreed to.

         Clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to. 

         On Clause 4:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  I move the amendment standing in my name to delete the current Clause 4 on composition of the Commission and substitute it with the New Clause 4 that;

 (1) The functions of the Board shall be—

• to formulate and develop measures and policies designed—
  • to achieve equal opportunities for persons with disabilities by ensuring, so far as possible, that they obtain education and employment, participate fully in sporting, recreation and cultural activities and are afforded full access to community and social services;
  • to enable persons with disabilities, so far as possible, to lead independent lives;
  • to give effect to any international treaty or agreement relating to the welfare or rehabilitation of persons with disabilities to which Zimbabwe is a party;
  • to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities resulting from or arising out of their disability;
  • to encourage and put into operation schemes and projects for the employment of or generation of income by persons with disabilities who are unable to secure employment elsewhere;
  • to encourage and secure the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities within their own communities and social environment;
  • to encourage and secure the establishment of vocational rehabilitation centres, social employment centres and other institutions and services for the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
  • to co-ordinate services provided in Zimbabwe for the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
  • to register—
    1. persons with disabilities; and
    2. institutions, associations and organisations, including those controlled and managed by the State and local authorities, that provide services for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; and
    3. places at which services for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities are provided;
  • to facilitate the provision of orthopedic appliances and other equipment to persons with disabilities;
  • to provide, so far as possible, all institutions, associations and organisations concerned with the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, including institutions, associations and organisations controlled and managed

by the State and local authorities, with access to available information and technical assistance;

• to provide, so far as possible, sponsor programmes to train skilled staff for the successful implementation of measures for the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
• generally, to improve the social and economic status and condition of persons with disabilities and to advance their interests; and

• to estimate, and report to the Minister on, the likely cost of proposed measures for the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and to advise the Minister on the relative priorities to be given to the implementation of those measures; and
• to keep measures for the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities under constant review and to reassess and evaluate those measures in the light of experience; and
• to perform such other functions in relation to the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities as may be prescribed.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Board shall have power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions and, in particular—

• may conduct inquiries, including public inquiries, into any matter relating to the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
• may appoint committees consisting of such persons, whether or not they are members of the Board, and on such terms and conditions, as the Board may determine;
• may vest in or impose on any committee appointed in terms of paragraph (b) such of the functions of the Board as the Board, with the approval of the Minister, may determine;
• may, on behalf of the State, engage or make other arrangements with any other person to carry out research for, or supply information or make submissions to, the Board on any matter relating to the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.

(3) The Board shall not incur any expenditure on behalf of the State except with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister responsible for finance. 

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Chair, I have no problem with respect to the additional functions of the board that the Minister has expanded the functions. Under the current Bill as gazzetted, it was under Clause 5 and you will note that I had put my amendments which if we are going to go by the Minister’s submissions, it will mean that my proposed amendments which are on Clause 5 will therefore fall off. 

         Turning back to the Hon. Minister, I need the Hon. Minister to educate me and maybe the House, on the functions of the board or the relationship between the board, the director disability affairs and the Minister.  I am saying this because if you check within the your submission, under Clause 5, you have said there will be Director Disability Affairs shall continue to be in existence and the functions of the Director shall be; to formulate for measures referred to, for submission of the board; then it says, through liaison with the Ministry and other authorities involved, to secure the implementation of the measures which have been recommended by the board. I wanted to find out, so this board, Hon. Minister, cannot make decisions but can only recommend and then it is actually up to the Director of Disability Affairs to do the work.

This Hon. Minister, it flies in the face of the persons or people with disabilities because their intention or their thinking is that the board should have some power which I thought in your new amendment, you had tried to give them but it appears you have given them on the right hand and in a way, you are allowing the left hand to also take some of the powers. I am actually thinking that there is need to re-look at the functions of the director so that we do not have a challenge in the future with respect to who holds the power there. So that is my view because even if you then check, if you look at number three on your amendments, in the performance of this function, the director shall comply with any general directions or instructions that the Minister or the board may give him or her.  I am also wondering Hon. Minister, whether it is not proper that the Minister should give directives to the board and then the board to the director or you have a situation where the two, the director goes straight to the Minister, the board goes straight to the Minister. We have had a problem in the past, I cannot remember where, the Director would be saying, no, I get my instructions from the Minister, the board was also saying the same and hence there will be a fight.  Generally, the people who suffer are the persons with disabilities. I seek clarification and seek that the Hon.  Minister, what you have given on the right-hand side, where you have expanded the functions of the board, let not the Director of Disability take them away.

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: The Director will act as the secretariat of the board. In other words, when the board sits, whatever they agree to, is then formulated by the Director and his/her team. The import of what the functions of the Director here are, is to say that you then do that particular way. In the Government architecture, we have a working party of officials that produce papers under the direction of the Executive. That is exactly what they are saying.

In any legislation, whether they have a board or a commission, they follow general directions, policy directions or instructions from the Minister. This Director of Disability will be under the Ministry of Labour and there is no way, I think the Director will act as the secretariat of the board to implement what they will be doing but remain an employee, a civil servant, under the Ministry of Labour.

I think the way it is couched; it is pretty much standard. It will capture the perceived inconsistencies in terms of the Government architecture are not there in real practice. That is how Government functions.  I submit. 

HON. MUSHORIWA: Madam Chair, this set of provisions happens in the Ministry of Public Service and Social Welfare. That is the only Ministry where we find such a system. If you check in terms of our various legislations, in other ministries we do not have such a governance structure.

Hon. Minister, part of the problem that we have actually had and part of the reason why the persons with disabilities communities had a problem with the question of the board, is actually because of the powers of the Director of Disability Affairs, whom as you have rightly pointed out, is an employee, is a civil servant and is an employee in the Ministry. You have got someone who has a dual reporting structure. He or she reports to the Minister and is also supposed to be the secretariat to the board.

You cannot save two masters and succeed. One master has to fall and ordinarily, it has always been the board. This is the reason why the outcry out there is to simply say, if you put a board, you destroy us but the real essence of the outcry is to simply say, if you then allow the Director of Disability Affairs, who is the secretariat to the board, to also be a civil servant who is reporting to the Minister, he has to choose. If I was in that position, the board cannot do much. I will respect the Minister or even the Permanent Secretary in that Ministry at the expense of the board. This is where the challenge that we have had and everybody has been crying on this issue.

Hon. Chair, I actually think we need some tweaking of some sort to make sure that at least we do not then make this board dysfunctional.

HON. TOGAREPI:  I think sometimes it needs practice. If you have been involved in an environment like the one we are intending to create, this would be easy to understand. A board and a Chief Executive   - operationally, the Director reports to the Minister. You can ask any other board that you know of a parastatal operationally, but the policy comes from the board.

It is not like the board daily would be telling the Director what to do but there are things which are supposed to be done by the Ministry that have been subordinated to be done by the board. So, the person who will be running in between board meetings is the board Director, who is the secretary, who implements the policies of the board.

 

What I am saying is, the Director, operationally, whether he is not an employee of the Ministry, but this board falls under the Ministry, operationally you run and get a consultation with the Minister. In terms of the policy, it comes from the board. That is the proper structure, the architecture when you are dealing with quasi-Government structures.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE: I need to start by emphasising the point that since the Ninth Parliament, I have been a disability champion and I am currently the secretary for the Disability Caucus. My view and opinion is informed by what I have gathered in the last few years with regards to the effectiveness of the previous board outside this new law.

We need to avoid repeating the same mistake. The disability community is very unhappy with the way the previous system worked, where an individual wielded so much power. The spirit of the law is to open up the disability agenda to all stakeholders. Practically speaking, the way it is designed, will revert us to where we are coming from, where an individual is a gatekeeper. So, I tend to concur with the concerns around the drafting. We need to make sure that we do not have the same kind of board that we had previously, which was very ineffective and it set us back as the disability agenda - that is why people are pushing for a commission because we have a commission on gender.

We need something much more robust and more accountable to the disability community. What we have at present as I speak to you is very unpopular in the disability community. We cannot claim to be a Parliament that listens to the people and to the disability sector, then come and do exactly what they are hostile to.

For the last few years, that is what they have been complaining about. So, I am appealing to us as Parliament to be sensitive in this matter not to repeat the same mistake where an individual has got too much power because they are appointed by the Minister yet the disability community is excluded. This is the problem that we are seeking to address. It is a mischief that is of very serious concern. Thank you.

HON. MALINGANISO: Maybe because I am young, I seem to hear an obsession with power and the power that is being alluded to is not defined. I am not so sure what the power being spoken about relates to. Let me give you a scenario, we here in Parliament or in our Portfolio Committees, we work with secretaries where they are informed in terms of policy but us the parliamentarians make decisions.

I would want to liken this board and the Director to the same situation we face here in Parliament. Unless, of course I am not so sure what the power being spoken about here is because what I am hearing and what I have read is that the board will make policy directions and the secretariat will implement them. I am not so sure where we are losing each other. Thank you.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: I want to add my voice. I think we need to adopt a human rights approach to these issues and speaking of power, We need to make sure that the people with disabilities...

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): Order Hon. Hlatywayo! There are Hon. Members who are conversing loudly and they are on my right. Please Hon. Members, allow us to be able to hear what is being debated in this House. This is a very important Bill. Please allow us to hear those who are participating in silence. Hon. Hlatywayo, please continue.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Thank you Madam Chair. I was saying that when we are looking at these issues, I think we need to adopt a human rights approach and what do I mean by a human rights approach? We need to listen to the community that is affected. The community with disabilities. So, we are being informed that the last board had challenges owing to this kind of arrangement where we have the Director reporting directly to the Minister and at the same time, the Director is also supposed to be reporting to the board.

We need clear accountability channels and to make it very clear, we need to make sure that we do not undercut the board by making sure that the board remains the policy-making organ within that framework that reports to the Minister. So, to have a Director who is reporting to two authorities, is a little bit problematic. We are being told that last time it was a problem. Maybe what the Minister needs to tell us in this current Bill, is how he is planning to cure this challenge that we had in the last board where we had dual reporting structures? In addition, what is the mechanism that is in the board to cure that mischief that we had in the last board?

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I have noticed that the Hon. Members who are debating are repeating what has already been said. Please avoid repeating so that we can also be progressive. Once a point has been made, it has been made. Please can you start saying things that have not already been said?

*HON. ZVAIPA: I think the Minister is clearly listening to what is being said. These people with disabilities which we are talking about, we are professors, learned people and doctors. Why can we not appoint one from these people with disabilities to become the CEO and to ensure that they take those posts since they are the ones who are facing all these challenges? We can all represent ourselves and anyone cannot clearly understand anything to do with disability better than me. I think they have to consider us.

HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you Madam Chair. As much as I respect Mr. Z. Z, Minister, I think...

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, Hon. Member! Can you withdraw Mr. Z. Z? He is the Leader of Government Business and you know his name.

HON. MUWODZERI: I withdraw, the Leader of Government Business.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: He is Hon. Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi.

 HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you Chair, Hon. Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi. That is much learned in law.

*HON. NYABANI: Point of Order. He is just repeating to what you have said. Let him just say it clearly that he has withdrawn. He did not withdraw his words. Let him withdraw. I think it is better if he sits down.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: The Hon. Member has withdrawn. Please note that we need order and continue to be very respectful to each other. It is very important. Hon. Muwodzeri, please proceed.

HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you for protecting me Madam Chair. I think the Minister has come up with a clear position that he is going to come with the advantages and disadvantages of a commission of a board so that the House can go through and come up with a position of the advantages. Possibly, we might come to the correct position than keep on going round and round like what you are doing in this House. If he is going to come up with those issues to say these are the advantages and these are disadvantages, maybe we are going to support his idea. I do not know. Thank you.

HON. S. SAKUPWANYA: Thank you Hon. Chair. I am grappling with the aspect of power once again as alluded by Hon. Malinganiso earlier. The aspect of power has to come from a sense of what do we mean because remember the board is still going to work with the Minister all the same? Just by having a Director or Directorate does not necessarily mean that there is no communication with the board and the Minister. It is a matter of procedure to ensure that whatever the Board decides to do or whatever policies come out of their negotiations, is directed properly and channelled through a Director who coordinates, executes and assists with executing.

I think it is important also because if we are talking about power, remember the board itself does not have oversight over the Minister. It is not the board's position to compete with the Minister in terms of oversight. That is why you have the Committee in the first place. We are saying that for the sake of moving in terms of implementation of whatever it is that they agreed with, let there be a Director who communicates with the Minister. At the same time, it does not alienate the Minister from the said board. So, I humbly submit that we should just leave it as is.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members on my right, I think I will have no choice but to point at the Hon. Members who are conversing loudly. Honestly speaking, you are disturbing the process.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair.  The problem that we are having is, I think there is a belief that we are creating an organ that will be independent of Government, that will be making decisions outside the unitary State.  If we have that thinking, then exactly what is there becomes wrong. If we have a board, the director or CEO has direct access to the Minister. The board will consider the policy framework and the general direction that, that particular company is supposed to function. The implementer will be the director or the CEO.  That particular implementer because the Minister responsible is there, will have direct access to say, these are the issues that we discussed. If the Minister feels that what the board is requesting is not consistent with Government policy, then he can actually call the board and say this is not correct.

Now, what is there is very consistent with any other position but the problem  we are having, that I am getting from some of those within the disability sector, is they want the creation of an organ that will be fully funded by the State. That will not happen.  We have a Minister responsible for disability, which is the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare. He is the one who is in charge of this Act and the director will be under the Ministry.  Then the board will come and deliberate on the issues, as per what is listed in there, according to the functions.  If they do that, the director will then implement that, as the secretariat.  I gave an example that in my Ministry, I give policy direction and the secretariat, headed by the Permanent Secretary (PS), will translate what I have said into actionable points. I do not go and sit and do the actionable points. Once they finish that, they will bring it to me and I will approve .

So, the director will do exactly that, formulate those proposals for submission to the board, and the board will say this is not what we agreed, go and redo. This is exactly what is being said but I do not see where we are losing it. I am also at pains to understand why we are saying that the disability community also want to be CEOs of the board. As a Government, we are saying we want inclusivity. We actually want every employer, at every level to have a certain number of disabled people employed by them if they have the capability.  We do not want to limit employment of disabled people in the disability board. We want each and every Ministry to employ the disabled, so that there is inclusion of the disabled people in the entire economy.  We do not want this segregation, this is a policy-making body to advise the Minister. The Minister will then take the issues of disability to Cabinet, so that in formulating our policy measures as a Government, we include issues of disability. That policy will be cross-cutting the entire economy, not limited to this particular board. The board is not about formulating issues that will be executed by the board, but by the generality of the community and the economy at large. I believe that this is very much in order and we should take it as it is.  I submit.

Amendments to Clause 4, put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, there was confusion when they debated. I think I proposed amendments to Clause 5, on Director of Disabilities. I proposed there is an off-wish, Director of Disability Affairs. I think we have exhausted this. I put amendment;

“5 Director Disability Affairs

• The Department of Disability Affairs established in terms of the Disabled Persons Act [Chapter 17:01] shall continue to be in existence.
• There shall be a Director for Disability Affairs whose Office shall be a public office and form part of the Public Service.

(2) The functions of the Director shall be—

• to formulate proposals for measures referred to in section 4(1)(a) for submission to the Board;
• through liaison with the Ministries and local and other authorities involved, to secure the implementation of measures which have been recommended by the Board in terms of section 4(1)(a) and approved by the Minister;
• to co-ordinate the activities of institutions, associations and organizations concerned with the welfare and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;
• to do such other things as may be prescribed by or in terms of this Act.

(3) In the performance of his functions, the Director shall comply with any general directions or instructions that the Minister or the Board may give him or her.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE: Thank you, Honorable Chair. In terms of the Director of Disability Affairs, I am proposing a slight change, on Clause 2, where it says on Sub-Section 2, there shall be a Director of Disability Affairs. I think there should be an additional point to say that preferably a person with a disability because that is one of the clear messages coming from the disability community. Preferably a person with a disability. Thank you.

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, I indicated that issues of disability must be cross-cutting within the community and various sectors of the economy.  We have put in a provision that will ensure that employers and even Government departments, they do the same.  I do not know what this will edify because it is only one position. The problem that we are having - the problem that has been happening with this Bill is that, there are certain individuals, who have been lobbying for changes, looking at themselves and that is not okay.

What we are advocating for is across Ministries, even in the private sector, the Minister of Finance will actually incentivise those that employ the disabled. We agreed that within Government, a certain percentage, which is in the Bill, should be reserved for those that are disabled, hence Ministries are also encouraged.  I am not sure what we are trying to solve by saying that specifically, the director must be disabled. I am not sure why but what the general policy should be for inclusion within the economy, to say those that are disabled must not be discriminated against.  There must be some empowerment provision, which we have put in the Bill. I submit Hon. Chair.

*HON. MATSUNGA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to proceed with the debate to say if we look into a lot of Ministries, they are actually being offered Ministries, youth, women, health, why disability caucus alone?  We are like downgrading people with disabilities. Remember, any day we have chances of becoming disabled even if we mistakenly step onto the ground. My main concern, Hon. Minister, is that so many institutions, they now have commissions. Why people with disabilities? Why? Thank you.

 

         *HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  The issue is not to do with the commission but to empower and advance the rights of persons with disabilities. The name ‘commission’ is not the only thing that will uplift people’s welfare and their rights. If you look into everything which was listed, what is it that the board should do? That is what they have to do and engage the Minister to say we want to do research on, so forth and they will come to say whenever you are going out there, please ensure that those people with disabilities, their employment percentage or quota of employment should be done this way. In the private sector, this is what we want it done.

The issue is not only focusing on ten (10) people, we are only looking into their rights to say we have to ensure that they are included. Those who are vulnerable like she said that we can have any disability from now, all we are simply saying is we need inclusion within the economy and society. That is one of the major duties which they have to do. I went on to agree with the previous speaker that there is no need for people to be specific but those who will be interviewing them will then go on to say, we have to employ somebody with a disability but we do not have to make it mandatory that the person should have a disability.

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): Hon. Members, we are debating going forth and backward, showing that we are not progressing.

*HON. HAMAUSWA: Hon. Chair, there was a question on the importance of having a person with disability as a Director. Minister, I am actually supporting to hear in this country, we have quite a number of those people with disabilities. So, if you want to prescribe to say we want those people with disabilities, they are actually qualified and they are there. Why is it that we wanted somebody with a disability to be employed as the Director? It is simply because those people with disabilities understand more about their livelihood. We know and we do understand but we do not understand that to a certain level.

It is just the same as with war veterans. I cannot become a Chairperson for war veterans when I was born in 1979 because I did not fight during the war and therefore, do not quite understand what happened during the liberation struggle unless if I had participated in that. If you do not have disability, you fail to understand to a certain level but those people with disabilities have their wishes, pleas and rights which they abide to. That is why we are pleading to say the Director be somebody with a disability. If you wish, you can simply say for the first five years, a Director has got to be somebody with a disability and the next session you ensure somebody with a disability will lead the group.

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I believe that the Hon. Minister has responded to that and in his response, he simply said, there is no discrimination for those people with disabilities if they have suitable qualifications but they have to be in each and every Ministry if they have qualifications. He is not saying no, what he simply said is we cannot specifically say somebody with a disability has to be the Director of Disability Affairs. Let us try to debate in another way.

*HON. MALINGANISO: The biggest challenge which we are facing in here is that we are going back and forth. If we go back to Clause 4, people agreed to say we have a lot of people with disabilities, which will then give directions to do with policies. The one which we are talking of is the secretary. I do not know what it is that secretary should say on things that he/she does not have experience. What is it that the secretary is entitled to know?

HON. MUSHORIWA: The submission by the Hon. Minister on the functions of the Director for Disability Affairs skips something which is crucial because the Director is supposed to be ex-officio of the board. Can we ensure that we put one sub-clause there which say that ‘shall act as the secretary to the board and ensure that the proper minutes, diarising of meetings’ becomes his/her functions. I think the current clauses that speak to the duties are not properly set and there is a reason why I need that to be included because we just want to expand.

Yes, we have said ex-officio and we simply need to make sure that for clarity purposes, we then make sure that he shall act as the secretary and makes sure that he also diarises the meetings for the board. I also say this Hon. Minister primarily because if you check, unlike other Bills where we have to go at length to define the roles of the Chair, Deputy Chair and other staff, in this manner, you will see that the secretariat will actually do most of the work in terms of the scheduling. So, it will be in liaison with the board Chair, something of that sort which I believe needs to be factored in when it comes to the meetings.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):

Thank you Hon Chair. I think Hon. Mushoriwa has explained it better than what I would have done but I agree that I do not see any harm in putting a sub-clause to say the functions of the Director shall be to act as the Secretary to the board. If it gives them comfort, it is okay. I propose that I put that addition to say that on Director of Disability Affairs, Sub-Clause 3, Sub-Clause E, I add an E to say to act as the Secretary to the board. I am going to submit that. It is actually there but I can put it if you want it.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): You might need to highlight.

Amendment to Clause 5 put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6:

 

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, Hon. Chair. I propose amendment;

 6 Invited members 

• The Board may invite persons to participate on a non-voting basis in one or more meetings of the Board if and when the need arises.
• A person invited under subsection (1) must be an expert or have special knowledge or experience to provide informed advice to the Board on any matter relating to persons with disabilities.

Amendment to Clause 6 put and agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, put and agreed to.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Minister and Hon. Mushoriwa! May I please remind you that an afterthought after we have posed the question is not permitted?

HON. MUSHORIWA: Afterthought Hon. Chair, the reason we are saying point of order, there is no amendment by the Honourable Minister on Clause 6. I want to find out which amendment you are putting, that the Minister has done on Clause 6.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: It is there.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, let me read it. In the actual Bill, it reads invited members. My amendment that I propose, I am proposing to change where it reads commission, to say the board may invite. That is the change that is there. That is Clause 6 as it appears in the Bill and on the Order Paper. That is the change that is there Hon. Mushoriwa. I do not know why he is confused.

On Clause 7:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, Hon. Chair. In line with the changes that we have done, ‘then the function of the’, we are now removing that Clause 7 which speaks to the Chief Executive Officer of the commission. I am proposing that we repeal it. I submit.

HON. MUSHORIWA: No, Hon. Chair, is it still standing as part of the Bill when it has been repealed?

Amendment to Clause 7 put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, put and repealed.

On Clause 8:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Given the fact that the Minister has actually bulldozed his way and goes for the commission, for the board, it means that this amendment will fall off.

Clause 8 put and agreed to.

On Clause 9:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you. My amendment Madam Chair, may possibly not stand given what has happened. However, the Hon. Minister, now that we have moved from the commission to a board and if we are going to go in the manner that we have explained to the board, are you still insisting, this Clause 9, does it still make sense? The fact that we now need the accounts and other staff because my understanding from what you are saying is that this will fall under the Ministry. I am not so sure whether this Clause 9, maybe I need clarification.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I agree with him Hon. Chair.  I think we need to delete this one.  Where it says the commission, hold on a little bit, I think there is need for reports, but I need to couch it, it has not…

Thank you, Hon. Chair and thank you Hon. Mushoriwa. I had omitted this.  Hon. Chair, I propose amendments in my name, to Clause 9, so that it reads, reports of the board and wherever there is ‘commission’, now I substitute with ‘board’ on that clause. So, it becomes, reports of the board, and wherever ‘commission’ appears, we substitute with ‘board’.  I so submit.

Amendment to Clause 9, put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  There is an amendment.  I think the amendment was an omission by the drafters.  In line 42, on page 9 of the Bill, to delete and or gross negligence and to substitute and without gross negligence.  I think that one, Hon. Minister, should not be problematic because I think if you leave it as it is, it will be very confusing.  I think the idea here is to exempt the board and its members from liability for acts done in good faith and without gross negligence.

The way it is like this, it says in respect of any act of omission done in good faith and or gross negligence. Which I do not think was the intention.  So, the editing there is to make sure that we then put the words ‘without gross negligence’.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU):  Just a moment.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you, Hon. Chair. I think there was a typo there.  I agree with Hon. Mushoriwa. I think let us accept the amendments in Hon. Mushoriwa's name and that will cure what Hon. Malinganiso wanted to deal with because I think, he had noticed the same error.

So, if we can adopt that and then he withdraws, I think it will cure what we are trying to say there.

HON. MALINGANISO:   It is in order, Madam Chair.

Amendment to Clause 10, put and agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, in line with what we have been doing.  On Clause 11, wherever ‘Chief Executive Officer’ appears to substitute with ‘Director of Disabilities’.

HON. MALINGANISO:  Madam Chair, there is an addition.  Also, where the word ‘Commission’ appears to be substituted with ‘the Board.’

Amendment to Clause 11, put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, put and agreed to.

         On Clause 12:

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, I propose amendment that on Clause 12, that wherever the name ‘Chief Executive Officer’ appears, we substitute with the ‘Director of Disability’ and wherever ‘Commission’ appears, we substitute with ‘Board’.  I submit to Hon. Chair.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, may you approach the Chair?

You can proceed Hon. Minister.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I am proposing an amendment, but it is not on the Order Paper.  It was an omission. Wherever the name ‘Chief Executive Officer’ appears in the entire Bill, we substitute with the ‘Director of Disability’ and wherever ‘Commission’ appears, we substitute with ‘Board’.  I so submit.

Amendment to Clause 12, put and agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, put and agreed to.

         Clauses 13 to 16, put and agreed to.

         On Clause 17:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair. I would have withdrawn but before I withdraw, I wanted to say, where we say the Minister shall take all necessary, where do we put the board? On the word Minister, can we not say the Minister and the board? My thinking is that the board needs to be seen to be doing something because here, it is the Minister all throughout the Bill, whereas I think we need to make sure that the board is factored in somewhere somehow rather than having all the clauses that follow will be saying, the Minister in consultation, the Minister this and the Minister that. It seems as if the whole Bill has now removed the powers of the board completely. I think we may need to bring in the board somehow and I do not know whether the Minister is adversely against this proposal.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. In terms of our Constitution, it is the duty of the State to ensure that rights are observed. If your rights have been violated and you want to go to the Constitutional Court to sue, you cannot sue a board, you sue the Government to say that the Government must ensure that this is done. This is an obligation on the State and the representative of the State is the Minister. So, it is in order but the board will now come with policy directions to ensure that this is realised. I submit. 

         Clause 17, put and agreed to.

         On Clause 18:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Madam Chair, if we are to go by the response from the Hon. Minister, it then follows that my amendments that I had put on Clauses 18 to Clause 43, all those amendments up to Clause 43 will now fall off because the Minister has had his way.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Hon. Mushoriwa. I will need to take them one by one and we will move with speed.

         Clauses 18 to 43, put and agreed to.

On Clause 44;

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I just need the clarification from the Hon. Minister. Now that there is the board, because the commission then were saying they could have the staff members. Is this still the wording? I am not so sure whether the board will have the staff members or it falls off. I do not know because if we go by what we are saying, it may not necessarily stand.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Hon. Chair, I agree. I propose the amendment there to say that the board shall designate certain staff members of the directorate to be inspectors for purposes of enforcing the provision of the Act. So that we still need the function.

HON. MUSHORIWA: Are they employees of the board?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: They are of the directorate, not of the commission, not of the board. So, I propose that between line 40 where it says ‘inspectors’, ‘the board shall designate certain staff members of the directorate of disabilities to be inspectors for purposes’. On the actual Bill, between line 40 and 45.

HON. MUSHORIWA:  If it is the staff from the directorate, is it that we need to say that the Minister or the Permanent Secretary get advice from the board because I see a problem there to then say the board? I do not think they have the power to do such a thing.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. T ZHOU): You will need to give us as you are reading it Hon. Minister.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. Actually Hon. Mushoriwa is correct. I propose that we say the ‘Minister shall designate certain staff members of his Ministry to be inspectors for purposes of enforcing provisions of this Act’. Then designating staff members of the ministry as inspectors, the Minister shall issue each inspector a certificate.

Amendment to Clause 44 put and agreed to.

Clause 44 as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 50 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 51:

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I propose amendments as they fully appear on the Order Paper to delete this.

Amendment to Clause 51 put and agreed to.

Clause 51 deleted.

         Clauses 52 to 53 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 54:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I propose the deletion of Clause 54 from the Bill, the repeal of this.

Amendment to Clause 54 put and agreed to

Clause 54 deleted.

         Clauses 55 to 57 put and agreed to.

         On New Clause 58:

    HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name that between lines 35 and 36 on page 32 of the Bill, to insert after clause 57 the following new clause:

“58 Savings

• Notwithstanding the repeal of the Disabled Persons Act [Chapter] 17:01], anything made, done or commenced under that Act which, on the date of commencement of this Act had or was capable of having force or effect shall, on or after that date, continue to have or to be capable of acquiring, as the case may be, the same force or effect as if it had been made, done or commenced under this Act.”

I am not so sure Hon. Minister, but it stands New Clause 58, I think this is just hygienic issues to simply say that if we have repealed then we are saying notwithstanding the repeal there are other things that need to continue rolling. 

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  I think it is okay, I concede.

Amendment to new Clause 58 put and agreed to.

New Clause 58 put and agreed to. 

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU):  Hon. Minister on minor amendments, I think you have covered them already.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, for the sake of completeness, for the record I move the amendment in my name that we delete the term “Commission” and substitute with “Board” wherever it appears in the Bill.

Delete the term “disabled person” and substitute with “persons with disabilities” wherever it appears in the Bill.

Delete the term “Chief Executive Officer” and substitute with “Director” wherever it appears in the Bill. I submit Hon. Chair. 

         Amendments to minor amendments put and agreed to.

         Minor amendments, put and agreed to.

First and Second Schedules put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill referred to Parliamentary Legal Committee.

         On the motion of THE MINISER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI), the House adjourned at Eighteen Minutes to Six o’clock p.m.