• Version
• Download 0
• File Size 352.05 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date September 5, 2024
• Last Updated March 12, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 05 SEPTEMBER 2024 VOL 50 NO 79

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Thursday, 5^th September, 2024

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

PRAYERS

(THE HON SPEAKER in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. SPEAKER

BILL RECEIVED FROM THE SENATE

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I have to inform the House that I received the Administration of the Estates Amendment Bill [H.B. 3 B, 2024] with amendments from the Senate.  In terms of Standing Order Number 168, the Bill will be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with the purpose of considering the said amendments. 

THE HON. SPEAKER’S RULING

LACK OF QUORUM

THE HON. SPEAKER: Before I ask for Members to present their points of national interest, yesterday there was no quorum.  According to the record, only 49 members were here instead of the 70.  The beginning part of the Prayer says we have been appointed to undertake and ensure that the welfare of society, that is the electorate and the citizens of our country are fully represented religiously by Members of Parliament. Lack of quorum is indicative of serious dereliction of duty.  There is no question about that. 

Therefore, as of yesterday, those Members who attended - the list is there on the Order Paper, will be entitled to their coupons.  From today, we will only attend to Members who shall be here until the end in terms of the packs that are due to them.  You swore an Oath of Office that you will obey the Constitution.  Section 119 clearly states out your responsibilities.  In terms of your oversight, legislative and representation roles vis-a-vis your oversight role or the executive,   Section 117 is very clear.  We derive our authority to be here and go about the legislation agenda to the authority of the people that have elected us.

Hon. Shamu, please can you be awake.  I am making a very serious announcement and I expect all Members to be attentive.  I repeat, those that will be in attendance until the last sitting the House adjourned are the people who will have their entitlements as per the records. 

We owe it to the tax payer to look after us in terms of what is due to us at the end of each month, our travel expenses and our hotel expenses.  These privileges should not be received on a silver platter.  We must deserve them as the people of Zimbabwe expect us to act accordingly. 

HON. P. ZHOU:  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir, welcome back.  Good afternoon Hon. Members. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] -  I rise to address a matter of national importance, the urgent need to protect Zimbabwe’s indigenous flora, which includes trees, shrubs, flowers et cetera, with medicinal properties. These trees include sausage trees (Mumvee) and baobab trees (Miwuyu).         

Our country is blessed with a rich biodiversity that has been used for centuries by our ancestors to treat various ailments. Recent reports however, indicate that the demand for these herbal resources is increasing rapidly, both domestically and internationally. This presents an economic opportunity that also causes a significant threat to the sustainability of our natural heritage.  If left unchecked, the indiscriminate harvesting and exploitation of these herbal resources could lead to the extinction and loss of valuable medicinal knowledge.

One concerning trend is the growing interest in Zimbabwe’s herbal resources by Western countries.  There is a real risk that these nations may establish mass production facilities which could result in the depletion of our natural resources.  To prevent this from happening, I propose that the Government enacts comprehensive legislation to protect our herbal trees.  The legislation should include the following provisions:-

• Designate specific areas as herbal conservation zones

where the harvesting of these trees is strictly prohibited or regulated.

• Promote the development and adoption of sustainable

harvesting techniques that minimise environmental impact and ensures the long-term viability of herbal populations. 

• Encourage the cultivation of herbal trees on farms and

plantations to meet domestic and international demand while reducing pressure on natural ecosystems. 

• Safeguard traditional knowledge associated with herbal

remedies through appropriate intellectual property rights mechanisms.

• Educate the public about the importance of preserving our

herbal heritage and the potential consequences of unsustainable exploitation.

I urge this House to give this matter the urgent attention it deserves and support the enactment and/or implementation of legislation to protect our precious natural resources.  I thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. 

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Thank you very much Hon. Zhou for that pertinent matter of national interest.  So important it is that I suggest that you come up with a motion to be presented in the House to do also on the issue of environmental matters as well as the emerging issue of trading in carbon credits which is now very fashionable in terms of the new look that the world has in terms of environmental issues, and the protection of indigenous trees from which we derive indigenous medicines which are highly recommended in many parts of the world.  Will you oblige?

HON. P. ZHOU: I will do so Mr. Speaker Sir.  Thank you once again. 

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Thank you.

HON. MHETU:   Good afternoon Mr. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Afternoon.

HON. MHETU: I rise to give this point of national interest with regards to the treatment of tourists in Zimbabwe, that tourists should be treated like investors. 

This came in light of the wrongful arrest in Masvingo, of a tourist from Turkey. I propose that tourists in Zimbabwe should be treated with the same care and respect as investors.  Section 5 of the Zimbabwe Tourism Act should be amended to include after care services for tourists such as the establishment of tourists information centres across the country. 

Additionally, Section 16 of the Zimbabwe Investment Authority Act offers protection against discrimination based on gender, race, religion and that protection should also be extended to tourists under the Zimbabwe Tourism Act.  The Zimbabwe Investment Development Authority Act also protects investors from cohesion, duress and harassment.  The Zimbabwe Tourism Act should be similarly amended to protect tourists from such mistreatment.

In conclusion, Zimbabwe should treat tourists as it does to investors, welcoming their contributions and recognising the value they bring to our economy.  However, the push to be welcoming to tourists, must not be misconstrued to mean they can come and violate Zimbabwe laws.  I so submit. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] -

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Thank you very much.  The last part of your statement should have predicated your statement in terms of the circumstances arising to the arrest of that tourist.  You are right, tourists are investors but they must be law abiding.  It does not mean that when you are an investor, you come here and disabuse the laws of the country. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – I am not sure whether this tourist you are sympathising with was a law-abiding tourist.

Again, if he or she was arrested, due process of the courts must be followed.  We are hesitant to debate matters that are before the courts in terms of our principle of separation of powers.  So, in future, dig more and predicate your submission accordingly. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –

HON. ZVAIPA:  Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker Sir,

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Good afternoon.

HON. ZVAIPA:  My point of national interest is as follows; local authorities are an important tier of Government.  While the Minister of Local Government and Public Works can issue policy directives, it must be done in line with our Constitution which underlines transparency and accountability.

Hon. Speaker, we are requesting the Minister of Local Government and Public Works to bring a Ministerial Statement on the unbelievable transactions that are being imposed by the Ministry on local authorities such as the recent Walter Magaya purported take-over of Chitungwiza Council service delivery functions. We need the Minister to advise us the scope of the said investment and whether it has gone through due diligence work by the council and the Ministry. I so submit.

         THE HON. SPEAKER: The Chair would not like to comment on the validity of the assertion, but Hon. Zvaipa should have raised this matter yesterday during question time so that the circumstances surrounding the matter that you have raised Hon. Member, could be more appreciated and if the Hon. Minister’s response to your question titivated towards an unsatisfactory answer or incomplete answer, you would then request Hon. Minister to have time to prepare a Ministerial Statement so that more details can be given and tabled before the House. I am sure you are so advised accordingly.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. KAMBUZUMA: Mr. Speaker Sir, I move that Orders of the Day Numbers 1 and 2 be stood over until Order of the Day Number 3 has been disposed of.

HON. MUSHORIWA: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

SECOND READING

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BILL [H. B. 2, 2024]

Second Order read: Second Reading: Persons with Disabilities Bill [H. B. 2, 2024].

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (HON. DINHA): Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, good afternoon Mr. Speaker.  I rise to …

THE HON. SPEAKER: Normally, Ministers must occupy the front desk. All Ministers here present occupy your rightful places.

(The Hon. Deputy Minister moved to the front desk)

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (HON. DINHA): Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I rise to deliver my Second Reading speech on the Persons with Disabilities Bill. The Bill before you today is of paramount importance as it seeks to repeal the now outdated Disabled Persons Act [Chapter 17:01 of 1992] aligned disability legislation with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and other international conventions and treaties that Zimbabwe is a part to, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A Human Rights International Treaty adopted by the United Nations in 2006 and ratified by Zimbabwe in 2013 aimed at protecting and reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Person with Disabilities which Zimbabwe has just ratified, whose primary objective is to promote, safeguard and ensure that persons with disabilities in Africa completely equally exercise and enjoy all their rights.

Mr. Speaker Sir, according to the Zimbabwe 2022 population and the House Census Report, the prevalence of disability in Zimbabwe is estimated to be around 9.5%. As such, persons with disabilities constitute a significant portion of Zimbabwe’ total population. The Bill seeks to uphold and protect the interest of this 9.5% of our total population, thereby promoting positive growth attitudes amongst persons with disabilities.  Despite any disability, allow persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe to pursue or work on their goals and aspirations in life that is allowing them to positively contribute to society.

The Bill also seeks to repeal the outdated Disabled Persons Act [Chapter 17:01 of 1992]. The name of the current Act, that is the Disabled Persons Act alone is now regarded as derogatory, outdated and no longer has a place within the current context of human rights approach, hence the Bill carries a different yet progressive title or name ‘Persons with Disabilities Bill’ which uses the people first language. The people first perspective puts the person first and the disability last, thereby allowing a person not to be defined by his or her disability. Instead of saying a disabled person, the internationally accepted terminology is to say a person with a disability. This perspective which is used in the title throughout the Bill places emphasis on the person and their identity first rather than describing a person with a disability first. This perspective has ensured that the Bill carries a human rights based approach to disability and lay out fundamental rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.

         As indicated above, the Bill seeks to align disability legislation with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly sections 22 and 83 respectively.  Mr. Speaker Sir, allow me to reiterate the provisions of section 22 of our Constitution which mandates the State and all agencies of the Government to recognise the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular their right to be treated with dignity and respect.  Section 83 of the same Constitution further obligates the State to take appropriate measures within the limits of its resources to ensure that persons with disabilities realise their full mental and physical potential.  The measures adopted by the State in terms of section 83 of the Constitution must enable persons with disabilities to:

1. Become self-reliant.
2. To live with their families and participate fully in social creative or recreational activities.
3. To be protected from all forms of exploitation and abuse.
4. To have access to medical, psychological and functional treatment.
5. To have access to State funded education and training where they so require it and have special facilities for their education.

More-so Mr. Speaker Sir, as indicated above, Zimbabwe is party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  These two international instruments are also key when it comes to ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are safeguarded.

This Bill Mr. Speaker Sir, will ensure that Zimbabwe incorporates the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which obliges the State parties to change and do away with laws, regulations, customs and practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which mandates State parties to modify, outlaw, criminalise and campaign against any harmful practices applied to persons with disabilities.

Through the incorporation of provisions of these two international instruments, the Bill will ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and promote inherent dignity of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker Sir, this Bill will replace the National Disability Board established in terms of the Disabled Persons Act, Chapter 17.01 with a Commission for persons with disabilities.  This Commission for persons with disabilities shall be tasked with important functions such as advising the Minister on all matters relating to persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe, preparing and coming up with the national disability policy, issuing adjustment orders, these are orders requiring premises to be altered to accommodate persons with disabilities and also promoting the recognition of skills, merits and abilities of persons with disabilities and their contributions to the workplace and labour markets, acting as a coordinating body for all organisations dealing with care and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.  Lastly, it will be responsible generally for promoting the interests of persons with disabilities.  

Mr. Speaker Sir, the Bill proposes to establish a fund called the Assistance Fund for Persons with Disabilities.  This fund will be administered by the Commission for persons with disabilities.  The said fund shall be getting its resources from Parliamentary appropriations as well as donations and grants.  This fund will play a critical role in establishing and running vocational training centres, rehabilitating persons with disabilities, subsidising assistive devises and technologies for persons with disabilities, providing scholarships for persons with disabilities, assisting persons with disabilities involved in income generating project, whether as individuals or as members of groups, associations or cooperative societies and will generally be used for the promotion of the rights and interests of persons with disabilities.

In order to move with current global trends, the Bill will ensure that persons with disabilities are not to be viewed or treated as objects of charity, but rather as people entitled to equitable treatment and have the same fundamental rights as everyone else.

The Bill will also expand the specific rights of persons with disabilities beyond those accorded to them by the existing Act, in particular, access to justice will be enhanced by giving persons with disabilities the right to free or affordable legal aid.

Persons with disabilities will have the right to education in their preferred language and access to free primary and secondary education.  This right will include learning sign language to promote linguistic identities and learning other forms of communication such as braille.

Their right to work on an equal basis with others to be employed in the private and public sectors and to exercise their labour rights will be enhanced.  To note is that private corporations that will employ persons with disabilities will get tax credits and the Bill will also recognise that parents of children with disabilities should receive support, training and capacity building to ensure that the children enjoy their rights among other issues. 

Mr. Speaker Sir, under the existing Disabled Persons Act, the National Disability Board had powers to make adjustment orders as stated above.  This Bill will give the same powers to the Commission, but the Bill will go a step further and allow interested persons including the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission to approach the High Court for adjustment orders against owners of premises and providers of services. This will ensure that persons with disabilities have full access to buildings and services.

         Mr. Speaker Sir, I will not at this stage undertake a clause-by-clause analysis of this Bill.  The explanatory memorandum to the Bill admirably suits that purpose.  I, therefore, encourage Hon. Members to read it carefully.  With these words, I urge Hon. Members to support this Bill which will promote a better, safer, and more conducive environment for persons with disabilities to positively live and contribute towards the development of our country.  The Bill will also greatly improve the enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities to which they are entitled under our Constitution and international law. I move that the Bill now read a second time.

HON. MASHONGANYIKA:  Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on public consultations on the Persons with Disabilities Bill [H.B. 2, 2023].

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Persons with Disabilities Bill [H.B. 2, 2023] was gazetted on 9 February 2024. The Bill seeks to operationalise the Constitutional provision relating to the rights of persons with disabilities and domesticate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).  The Bill establishes a Commission for Persons with Disabilities to oversee the implementation of the Bill and advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.  The Bill further provides greater protection for the rights of persons with disabilities encompassing a wide range of areas, including access to education, employment, healthcare, participation in public life, and removing barriers. It ensures equal opportunities to create a more inclusive society in Zimbabwe. 

1.1      In terms of Section 141 of the Constitution which enjoins Parliament to ensure public involvement in its legislative process and that interested parties are consulted about Bills, the Joint Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare and the Thematic Committee on Gender Development conducted public consultations on the Bill. This report summarises the views of the people of Zimbabwe on the Bill.

2.0    METHODOLOGY

2.1      As part of consultations on the Bill, the Committee attended a workshop organised by Sight Savers and Albino Trust of Zimbabwe.   The workshop was also attended by representatives of the Parliamentary Caucus on Disability, legal experts, civil society organisations (CSO) representing persons with disabilities, and officials from the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare.  Some representatives of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare attended another workshop organised by the Institute of Community Development in Zimbabwe which was attended by organisations representing persons with disabilities.  At these two workshops, the Civil Society Organisations submitted their views on the Bill.

2.2      The Joint Committee also conducted public hearings on the Bill from 13 May to 17 May 2024. In this regard, the Joint Committee was divided into two teams which undertook consultations at 10 different venues across the 10 provinces of Zimbabwe.

3.0      SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3.1      General Submissions 

3.1.1   The public applauded Parliament for the efforts made in reaching out to gather their views on the Persons with Disabilities Bill. However, a call was made to extend the consultations to the district level and avail the Bill in simplified form and other languages provided for in the Constitution including Braille in the future.  A concern was raised on venues, one of which was not accessible to persons with disabilities.

  3.1.2 There was a general agreement that the Bill was a step in the right direction towards the inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in social, economic, legal, and political spaces. The public supported the Bill subject to further improvement as highlighted in this Report. 

3.2      Highlights of participants' views the Bill

3.2.1   Clause 2  

  Whilst the definition of persons with disabilities in Clause 2 borrows from Article 1 of the UNCRPD, the public were concerned that it did not specify the forms of disability.  The definition in the National Policy on Disability which specify epilepsy and albinism as forms of disabilities was the most preferred. Persons with disabilities presented that people with some forms of disabilities had been marginalised and excluded within the country’s legislative frameworks and programmes targeting persons with disabilities, hence the need to have a broad definition that include all forms of disabilities.

Clause 3

3.2.2   There were different views submitted on Clause 3.  Some presentations indicated that the composition of the Commission should demonstrate a fair regional and gender representation and should have persons with diverse impairments to ensure equitable representation.  They were opposed to organisations of persons with disabilities seconding Members to the Commission.  They preferred appointments to the Commission that are based on merit through public interviews conducted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders as with Independent Commissions.  They also preferred a similar commission like those in Chapter 12 of the Constitution.

3.2.3   It was also raised that the composition of the proposed Commission for Persons with Disabilities should include parents of children with disabilities on the basis that parents of children with disabilities face unique and special challenges raising them as they are instrumental in the outcomes of children with disabilities. 

3.2.4   Some opposed inclusion of parents or guardian of children with disabilities in the Commission citing that there are educated and capable persons with disabilities to be Commissioners.  Others underscore the need for 50% of members of the Commission to be persons with disabilities.

3.2.5   Some were of the view that the Commission should have 10 Commissioners to ensure a representation from each of the country’s 10 provinces.  Others were of the view that the Commission should be made of 15 members, where five are technocrats while the other 10 are members of the disability community with varying forms of disabilities nominated from the country’s 10 provinces.

Clauses 4 and 8

3.2.6   The public noted inconsistencies in Clause 4 (4) and Clause 8 (1) (a) as the Commission is given a 4-year term in Clause 4 and yet the Commission is required to come up with a 5-year strategic plan in Clause 8.  It was suggested that Clause 4 should be amended to allow the Commissioners to have a 5-year term to enable them to finish implementation of the 5-year strategic plan.

3.2.7   Clause 5

  In addition to the functions provided in the Bill, the public recommended that the Commission should receive and handle complaints by persons with disabilities against government ministries, departments or agencies.  Thus, the need to ensure the independence of the Commission was considered paramount.  In addition, it was submitted that the Commission should maintain a database for persons with disabilities with disaggregated data and facilitate the issuance of identification cards.

3.2.8   Clause 7

A proposal was made that the Chief Executive Officer should be a person with some form of disability, qualify for one of the social sciences at a degree level, and have managerial or administrative experience.

3.2.9   Clause 10

It was proposed that the clause should be amended to allow the Commission and the secretariat to be held liable and answerable for accountability purposes as opposed to the granting of immunity.

3.2.10 Clause 11

The public proposed the need for the Commission to consider applications for registration as opposed to giving such powers to the Chief Executive Officer.

3.2.11Clause 17

It was proposed that punitive measures should be replaced by criminalisation of any act of discrimination against persons with disabilities as discrimination was viewed as a significant barrier to the attainment of other rights.

3.2.12 Clause 18

The public proposed that the Bill should emphasize barrier-free accessibility and not the concept of reasonable access.  The Bill should, therefore, enforce compliance from institutions, agencies, and parastatals in the design of buildings, programmes, services, or purchase of appliances, devices, and vehicles that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clause 30

3.2.13 There was a proposal that the government should provide a regulated system to facilitate access to qualified personal assistants who will assist PWDs by interpreting in sign language. This will help mitigate the cases of abuse of PWDs.

3.2.14 Clause 20

A proposal was made for the Bill to provide in clear terms how the women and girls with disabilities would be empowered and to state the specific programmes.

3.2.15 Clause 29

Emphasis was given to the need for the Bill to provide for duty-free and exempted taxes on mobility aids and other assistive devices or even for the government to provide them for free.

3.2.16 Clause 34

It was emphasised that the Bill should ensure access to free and quality education from ECD to tertiary education.  It was argued that BEAM should allow persons with disabilities to learn up to a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or the highest level of education they wish to attain and not be limited to the first degree. Education institutions must be compelled to formulate disability policies that promote, protect, and advance the right to education.

3.2.17 Some suggested the establishment of special schools for children with disabilities within reach to cater to their special needs.  Others, however, viewed the proposal as discriminatory.  Thus, in the spirit of inclusivity, children with disabilities should learn with other able-bodied children but the facilities at the schools should be inclusive.  The teachers should, therefore, be trained in all kinds of disabilities so that they can understand and teach children with disabilities effectively.   

3.2.17 Clause 35

It was submitted that sign language should be provided at all health facilities for persons who are deaf and hard of hearing.  It was recommended that the Bill should provide special training for some health workers such as nurses, and doctors in sign language to assist all kinds of disabilities when they require health services.  In addition, the public underscored the need for disability comprehensive and inclusive health coverage for persons with disabilities to ensure the availability of suitable infrastructure and specialised equipment such as ramps.

3.2.18 Clause 37

In addition to a reserved quota for the employment of persons with disabilities by government departments and parastatals, the public recommended that the provision be extended to the private sector.  Some proposed that the 2% disability employment quota for persons with disabilities should be raised to 5%, while others proposed a 15% quota. It was further proposed that employees with disabilities should have a 25% tax credit which should be reviewed periodically.

3.2.19 Clause 38

  The public called upon the Government to provide a monthly Disability Grant as part of a Poverty Reduction Programme, citing the economic cost of disability, and discrimination of persons with disabilities in the workplace, among other factors.

3.2.20 Clause 39

The public proposed a fair inclusion of persons with disabilities in any decision-making board since they are the ones who experience the challenges of having disabilities. It was also proposed that five years was too long for compliance to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in every decision-making body.  The time should be shortened to one year to allow for preparation.

3.2.21 Clause 42

It was proposed that Clause 42 (2) (ii) ‘disabled persons’ should be replaced with ‘persons with disabilities. The public also felt that the proposed level 7 fine was too lenient and hence proposed a level 12 fine as a deterrent measure to would-be offenders.

3.2.21 Clause 45

Regarding the Establishment of an Assistance Fund for Persons with Disabilities, it was proposed that the word ‘Assistance Fund’ should be replaced with ‘National Disability Fund’.  They argued that ‘assistance’ carries charitable connotations.  It was proposed that Clause 45 (4) be removed and Clause 45 (3) be rephrased to read as ‘The Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of the Commission shall administer the fund subject to the reasonably cost-effective need to accommodate more recipients to the fund with the approval of the Minister’.  Some commented that the Government as opposed to NGOs should take full responsibility for providing for persons with disabilities and provide for a ‘Grant for Persons with Disabilities’ that should be allocated adequate funds in the National Budget each year.  They also argued that the allocations under the Social Welfare Programme in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare are inadequate hence the need for a stand-alone special grant allocated in the National Budget.

3.2.22 Clause 48

It was submitted that the funds include income-generating projects for parents of children with disabilities as they are excluded in the clause.  The public complained that parents of children with disabilities incur additional costs such as food, medicines, therapies, assistive devices, and extra care in raising children with disabilities.  To this effect, they need additional support with income-generating projects as well as a special grant.

3.2.23 Clause 51

It was proposed that this clause and any other clause or section in the Bill that refers to the Director of Disability Affairs must be removed and replaced with the Chief Executive Officer.  Thus, creating independence befitting a competent Commission and avoiding conflict of interest.  It was further proposed that the Commission should not report to the Minister but to Parliament.  They further proposed that civil servants should not be part of the Commission and should not sit in the Commission as this will cause a conflict of interest.

3.2.24 It was also submitted that the Bill is silent on supporting recreational activities for PWDs and should provide financial support in sports and talents such as singing, acting, and sewing.

4.0      COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

            The Committee made the following observations:

4.1      Members of the public were in support of the Bill although there were some conflicting views on proposals for amendments, in terms of the number of the Commissioners and the composition of the Commission for persons with disabilities.

4.2      There was a general agreement that persons with disabilities should be considered first as beneficiaries of social protection schemes and should have free and easy access to health and education services.

4.3      The public wanted an Independent Commission like the Chapter 12 Commissions without the interference of a Minister as compared to an Executive Commission.

4.4      The Committee noted that persons with disabilities wanted to be in control of their affairs   and the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission to be a qualified person with a disability.

5.0          COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee made the following recommendations:

5.1     In the meantime, the definition of disability should comply with the UNCRPD definition.

5.2      The Commission for persons with disabilities should be increased from seven to ten Commissioners for a fair regional representation.

5.3      The government should introduce a National Disability Fund instead of the proposed Assistance Fund in Clause 45 to ensure PWDs get monthly grants. This grant should be a human rights-based approach rather than a social welfare approach.

5.4      The proposed Commission in Clause 5 should come up with a data base that should be regularly updated for all persons with disabilities stating gender, form of disability, and identification cards as one of its functions. 

5.5      Clause 18 (1) (a) should be amended by replacing ‘reasonable access’ with unrestricted access to all indoor and outdoor places, public transport, and information.

5.6      Clause 34 (1) (d) should clearly state that PWDs should have free access to quality education from Early Childhood Development (ECD) to the highest tertiary level of education.

5.7      Clause 35 should have a provision for sign language health professionals at all health facilities.

5.8      The Bill should have a clause that clearly states that all assistive devices should be exempted from import duty and be offered to persons with disabilities free of charge.

5.9     There is a need for translation of all proposed legislation into the local languages recognised in the Constitution, Braille, and sign language. I thank you.

  HON. MALINGANISO:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, good afternoon.

         THE HON. SPEAKER:  Afternoon.

         HON. MALINGANISO: Mr. Speaker Sir, notwithstanding effort towards progressive realisation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Mr. Speaker Sir, it is important to note that we are faced with a Bill that is ultimately strange. 

         Why do I say so Mr. Speaker Sir?  The rights of everyone in Zimbabwe are sacrosanct and are so housed in our Constitution, but we are talking of a Bill that lacks a ‘whereas’ section.  It does not derive its mandate from the Constitution of Zimbabwe. 

         Mr. Speaker Sir, the draft Bill claims to align to the Constitution of Zimbabwe, but that lack of a ‘whereas’ section is full hint that it does not emanate from the same Constitution.   The inclusion of a ‘whereas’ clause which emphasises the supremacy of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and which provides evidence that the draft Bill flows directly from the rights enshrined in the Constitution is required.  The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act, Chapter 10:30 provides a good example of a ‘whereas’ clause.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the primary purpose of the draft Bill should not be to provide for the establishment of the Commission for persons with disabilities. Beginning with this statement is wrong because the primary focus should be on promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. 

         Mr. Speaker Sir, about 70% of the draft Bill is unreasonably dedicated to the proposed Commission yet the draft Bill should be centered on enhancing the well-being of persons with disabilities and not on securing positions, power, money and immunity prosecution of Commission members and their associations – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] -  Out of the eight parts of the draft Bill, six parts are dedicated to the proposed Commission.  Mr. Speaker Sir, the only part which is Part 6, which is dedicated to the right of persons with disabilities still ends with three sections, that is 42 to 44, which award additional powers to the proposed Commission with regards to adjustments orders. Sadly Part 6 (43) opened the door for anyone to take any property to the High Court for issues of access to public premises, services or amenities by persons with disabilities in our country, which still move towards embracing the issue of accessibility across sectors, which we cannot achieve overnight but only through progressive realisation.

Mr. Speaker Sir, no country in the world has thus far achieved a holistic status, so opening the door of the High Court of Zimbabwe in this way and at this stage, will result in pandemonium across the country in scenarios that may unnecessarily burden the justice delivery system.

Mr. Speaker Sir, 26 out of the 29 sections in Part VI, the only part which addresses disability rights in the draft Bill, end with a common clause “The Commission shall make appropriate recommendation for the amendment of the relevant laws and practices to enhance”.  The clause depicts the proposed Commission as a Law Review Commission for all sectors.

One therefore, wonders about how the proposed Commission will get time to review all these laws, given the fact that the same proposed Commission intends to also take over all the current functions of the department of Disability Affairs in the Ministry of Public Service and Social Welfare to which the disability statutes is currently assigned.

The Department of Disability Affairs is mentioned in a cosmetic way at the end of the Bill in Section 51 under Miscellaneous Provisions, but it has been stripped of its role in a manner that it is rendered being irrelevant or especially useless. There is therefore no need to sustain the Department of Disability Affairs given the fact that they have been given almost nothing to do, serve for primarily a liaison role.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the Bill is silent on older persons. It is important to note that health risks accumulate across each person’s life span, people will experience cases of chronic illness, accidents and injury over time resulting in increased vulnerability to disability in older age. There is an ultimate relationship between disability and age which needs to be addressed by the draft Persons with Disabilities Bill.

On transport, it is important to note that public transport operators are putting persons with disabilities to pay for assistive devices, including their wheelchairs and crutches and public transport costs become higher for persons with disabilities on the basis of such disabilities.

Some public transport operators refuse to ferry persons with disabilities within the public transport system in the country roads on the basis of disabilities.  The issue of importation of private vehicles duty free is embedded with serious problems and the Bill does not speak to same.  In terms of Section 120 of the Customs and Exercise Act [Chapter 23.2] as read together with Statutory Instrument [257:2003] and [101:2011], a physically handicapped person can import one passenger or light commercial motor vehicle.  Mr. Speaker Sir, disability does not end with physical impairment. We have a very broad definition of disabilities amongst which those with epilepsy must be included.  Therefore, segregating that only a certain segment of persons with disabilities is entitled to importing cars duty free is, the word does not sound right but it is not representing the very same people or claims to be serving.

All the above issues must be addressed in the draft Bill under a section that is dedicated to transport.  There is a need for the draft Bill to have a provision that directs the inclusion of persons with disabilities in all social protection policies, laws and programmes.

The draft Bill must clearly address the issue of promoting international cooperation between and among States and as appropriate in partnership, with relevant international and regional organisations, civil society including organisations of persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the draft Bill is not aligned to the provisions of the National Disability Policy which was launched by His Excellency,  the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe on 9^th June, 2021 and which is in line with both the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The two frameworks should and must speak to each other.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the draft Bill has many discrepancies and there is a need for the draft Bill to be urgently revised through a team that includes a legal drafter and a disability expert before the draft Bill undergoes any further processes.   It is also important to note that there are no definitions of key terms under the Bill.

Mr. Speaker Sir, Articles 3 (I) and 3 (II) where the establishment of a Commission is articulated; the establishment of a Commission is not necessary because we realise that Chapter 12 in the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides only for five independent Commissions as follows; Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, Zimbabwe Gender Commission, Zimbabwe Media Commission, Zimbabwe National Peace and Reconciliation Commission.  There is no mandate extended to us by the Constitution to establish a Commission for persons with disabilities. 

Chapter 12 of the Constitution Hon. Speaker, is clear that Independent Commissions are not subject to the direction and control of anyone although they are accountable to Parliament for the efficient performance of their functions.  The proposed Commission as provided in the draft Bill is clearly not a Chapter 12 Independent Commission as it reports to the Minister in the same way that the current National Disability Board does.  Mr. Speaker Sir, there is therefore no reason to seek to replace the board with a Commission.  In any case, the Government of Zimbabwe is purported to be exploring the possibility of consolidating some of the five independent Commissions established under Chapter 12 of the Constitution in order to eliminate redundancy and to streamline operations. Concerns that all of the Chapter 12 Commissions with the exception of ZEC focus on promoting and protecting human rights enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution such as the right to life, basic services and freedoms of assembly and expression have been illuminated.

Establishment of a Persons with Disabilities Commission at this juncture, which also deals with promoting and protecting human rights will therefore be in conflict with the above noble national agenda, thus pulling the nation backwards instead of forward. In any case Hon. Speaker, Article 33 of the National Implementation and Monitoring of the United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities addresses the issue of 33 (1), a coordination mechanism within Government to facilitate related action in different sectors and different levels.  33 (II) National institutions for protection and monitoring of human rights within a framework that consists of one or more independent monitoring mechanisms and 33 (III) participation of civil society and in particular, persons with disabilities and their representative organisation in monitoring processes.

Mr. Speaker Sir, Article 33 (I) is currently being implemented by the Department of Disability Affairs in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare through a National Disability Committee, which comprises representatives from all 26 Government ministries, Commissions, organisations with persons with disabilities and development partners. Article 32 (2) is currently being implemented by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.  Article 33 (3) is being collaboratively ensured by the Department of Disability Affairs, the ZHRC and other key stakeholders.

         Whilst the implementation of Article 33 of the UNCRPD is significant in the broader scheme of the whole of Government and whole of society approach, the draft Bill has paid very little attention to tenets of Article 33. Along with all other human rights, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, which is an independent Commission, should continue to monitor issues that relate to the human rights of person with disabilities, hence there is no need to establish a separate Commission specifically for disability rights.

         Considering that disability is a cross-cutting inter disciplinary issue, the capacity of all key stakeholders in addressing issues of disability rights must be strengthened, including that of Chapter 12 Commissions. The draft Bill is transferring the functions of the Department of Disability Affairs to the proposed Commission in a scenario where the Government of Zimbabwe stands to lose the gains made this far in the Second Republic, in implementing Article 33 of the UNCRPD.

         Mr. Speaker Sir, on Article 4 (1) in the Bill, the term associations creeps in from nowhere, thus causing confusion in the use of the terms that have already been defined under Part 1, that is entitled Preliminary, which are organisations of persons with disabilities and organisations of persons with disabilities.  Mr. Speaker Sir, wrong disability terminology is used in the statement provided that the Minister shall endeavour to appoint members who represent a cross section of impairments occurring among persons with disabilities.

There is no provision which draws from Section 32 (3) of the National Disability Policy 2021 which states that persons with disabilities will be employed on the basis of skills, merits, qualifications, knowledge and abilities and not just on the basis of disability.  Furthermore, the draft Bill struggles to clearly uphold the principle of inclusivity in the workplace, which means including all types of people and treating all of them fairly and equally.  The draft Bill does not have the good intention of ensuring that both persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities simultaneously occupy space at the proposed Commission and work together in unity to push forward the national disability agenda.  The draft Bill seeks to create a little country of persons with disabilities within the broader Zimbabwe.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the proposed Commission of Persons with Disabilities should not be regarded as an entity of persons with disabilities alone, but the principle of inclusivity should apply, otherwise we risk perpetuating acrimony and unproductive divisions.

Mr. Speaker Sir, Article 4 (1) (a) the draft Bill, should stick to terms that have been defined in Part 1 Preliminary Organisations of Persons with Disabilities and Organisations for Persons with Disabilities.  In 4 (1) (a) as well the last sentence which consists of inappropriate disability terminology must be deleted.  In any case, the sentence sign post dominance of persons with disabilities at the proposed Commission, yet in upholding the principle of inclusivity such should not be the case.

Mr. Speaker Sir, a provision which provides for a robust recruitment and selection process of officials, thus seeking the appointment of both persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities on the basis of skill, merit, qualifications, knowledge and abilities should be added.  In any case, there is no need to establish a Commission of persons with disabilities which creates unnecessary duplication and overlap of functions with existing relevant entities.

Mr. Speaker Sir, 4 (1) (d) refers to one member representing the Ministry responsible for education appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for education as if we have only one Ministry that is responsible for education.  It is best to make provision for the inclusion of members from the two Government ministries of education that we have, which are the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education as well as the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Innovation, Science and Technology Development, thus enabling us to run all full circle of education for persons with disabilities, that is from ECD to tertiary education.

Mr. Speaker Sir, 4 (b) to 4 (g), the draft Bill directs the Minister to appoint members of the Commission from only six Government Ministries out of 26.  The provision is therefore restrictive given that disability is present in all sectors within a context of the whole of Government and whole of society approach.  4 (3) gives high value to disability in a way that disqualifies non-disabled persons who may have excellent personal, educational and professional biographies that fit the positions of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the proposed Commission.  Mr. Speaker Sir, a provision must be added, which supports the current agreement of a National Disability Committee which has representatives from all 26 Government ministries, Commissions, organisations of persons with disabilities and development partners and which is currently being chaired by the Department of Disability Affairs under the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare. 

Continuity of this work, Mr. Speaker Sir, is critical if we are to safeguard the significant progress that we have made this far in relation to mainstreaming disability in all sectors.  I believe this works resonates with the President’s mantra that no one and no place should be left behind.  If we are in pursuit of such an undertaking, Mr. Speaker Sir, we do not afford to support a scenario where only a section of the Ministry is allowed to work under the proposed Bill with persons with disabilities, realising that disability is a cross-cutting issue and interdisciplinary issue.

Mr. Speaker Sir, 4 (3) needs to be revised to enable it to indicate that persons with a suitable personal, educational and professional biography that best fits the positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the proposed Commission if it should suffice.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Hon. Member, if you could wind up your presentation.

HON. MALINGANISO:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, they will be appointed by the Minister on the basis of merit, regardless of whether they have a visible disability or not.  In any case, Mr. Speaker Sir, it is better to refer to Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the National Disability Board, not of the Disability Commission and because of time Mr. Speaker Sir, I so submit.  I thank you.

HON.  J. TSHUMA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, I was prepared to debate and support the Bill that was presented here by the Hon. Deputy Minister but after listening to the eloquent and thought-provoking sentiments and viewpoints by the young cadre Hon. Malinganiso here, it has got me thinking and I believe that we will not do justice if we try to go through this debate without really interrogating the issues that the Hon. Member has brought to this House.  So, I hope you are going to allow me Hon. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Start the interrogation.

HON. J. TSHUMA:  I will - [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] - Hon. Members on the right must learn to listen to the Speaker and be respectful.

         THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I am sure you have got your thoughts on the Bill.

         HON. J. TSHUMA: From the thoughts that I have gathered from this debate, I think that it is very important that we analyse this thing and bring it to perspective to understand that there should never be a moment where there is segregation of people living with disability and any other able-bodied person.

         This point has been brought up so well that I thought that there are institutions that have dealt with these issues of disabilities.  There is one colossal institution that has dealt with it very well and that institution is none other than the colossal party ZANU PF led by His Excellency, Dr. E.D. Mnangagwa, who is the President of this country and also the Chairman of SADC.  Before him, we had the late former President, R.G. Mugabe who in the highest body of the party, the secretariat of the party, the Politburo had appointed then Hon. Sen. Joshua Malinga to lead the Portfolio of people living with disabilities.

After his demise, the now-current President showed us how issues of disabilities should be handled and he chose one of us here, Hon. Rose Mpofu to lead that department.  By so doing, we are learning that these issues of disabilities are better and best left with the people that are living with them.  It is very dangerous Mr. Speaker Sir, can you imagine the President appointing you to be the Secretary for the disabled?  You probably would not know anything…

         THE HON. SPEAKER: Order! Why not choose some other person including yourself?

         HON. J. TSHUMA: I will take that back. All I am trying to drive home is that there are issues that are better handled by a certain sector and it should be like that.  Having listened attentively to Hon. Malinganiso, I think now when I look at it, it should never be about the Commission really but the board because as he rightfully cited, there are a lot of infringements, especially when it comes to the issue of the Constitution of the country vis-a-vis what the Bill is praying for.

         So, a board will be adequate but now in that board, there is one thing I liked from the Bill where they said parents of people living with disabilities should be included in such issues because they live with that situation every day.  So, there is no way we should live them out at all.  We have a situation whereby if you go back down to our homes, a lot of people living with disabilities especially children, are hidden from society.  So, they are denied the privileges and joys of being children as they grow up because society probably shuns them and at some point, they would even think that this is all about juju/umuti and stuff like that.  It then makes life difficult for those people.

         So, that is why I am saying parents of people living with disabilities must be included in these issues…

         HON. MUSHORIWA: On a point of order! The Hon. Member is continuously referring to people living with disabilities.  We now say people with disabilities, so I think it is important to note that the terminology that he is using is wrong.  I thank you.

         THE HON. SPEAKER: That is correct.  We speak of people with disabilities and not people living with disabilities.  So, if the Hon. Member can take note.

         HON. J. TSHUMA: Thank you very much Hon. Speaker Sir.  It is refreshing to get corrected from the left side once in a while.  I take that and…

         THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have ruled on the point of order and there is no need for debate on that one.  That is the position of the United Nations in terms of the definition currently.

         HON. J. TSHUMA: I stand corrected Mr. Speaker Sir.  I hope that the people who will debate after me will have analysed the presentation by Hon. Malinganiso vis-a-vis the Bill so that we come up with a very concrete position.  It is a very pertinent issue; it is an issue that we should not play about.  It is an issue that we need to interrogate and make a resolution that will make sure that we remove the segregatory aspect of this whole thing.  We are all one and we all should live harmoniously together.  Therefore, I want to submit that this Bill must be open and people must research and try to bring these two together so that by the time we are done with it, we would have come up with a very live and important…

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: On a point of order.  I thought that the Hon. Member should focus on debating the Bill rather than saying we should go and research well.  I want his opinion of this Bill.  We are also waiting to air our voices to that Bill.  I thank you.

         THE HON. SPEAKER: If you are prepared to air your views, the Hon. Member is airing his views calling for a great analysis of the Bill.  So, I do not see anything wrong with that.

         HON. J. TSHUMA: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.  I was about to conclude and I am glad that you have schooled us all on handling such issues.  However, this is not a joking matter, it is a very important issue but let us then interrogate whether the Bill allows the commissioning of a board at the end of the day. Let us do something that will make us all equal.  I so submit.

HON. TOBAIWA:  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir.  I rise as a young representative of our great nation to voice my support and provide critical insights on the Disability Bill currently under consideration.  This Bill which is also proposing the establishment of a Disability Commission is not just a legal document but a beacon of hope and a step towards inclusivity and equality for all Zimbabweans.  In our society, persons with disability have historically been marginalised facing significant barriers in accessing education, employment, healthcare and also social services.  This marginalisation is not just a social injustice but a severe hinderance to the full economic and social development of our country.  The Disability Bill aims to address these disparities by ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights and participate fully in our society. 

One of the most transformative aspects of this Bill is the creation of a Disability Commission.  This Commission is envisioned as an independent body that will oversee the implementation of policies and laws pertaining to disability rights.  It will serve as a watchdog, ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are protected and promoted.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the establishment of this Commission is crucial for several reasons:

Representation and Advocacy – the Commission will provide a platform for persons with disabilities to voice their concerns and advocate for their rights.  It will ensure that their perspectives are included in policy-making processes, thereby promoting a more inclusive society.

Monitoring and Enforcement – an independent Commission will have the authority to monitor compliance with disability related laws and policies. This will help in identifying gaps and enforcing regulations, ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are not just theoretical but practically upheld.

Awareness and Education – the Commission will play a pivotal role in raising awareness on the rights and needs of persons with disabilities.  It will help in dispelling myths and stereotypes, fostering a more inclusive and accepting society.

Support and Services – by coordinating with various Government departments and civil society organisations, the Commission can facilitate better access to services and support for persons with disabilities.  This includes education, healthcare, vocational training and employment opportunities. 

As a disability champion, I am particularly concerned about the future of our nation and the inclusivity of our development agenda.  It is imperative that we build a society where everyone, regardless of their physical or mental abilities, has the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from our national progress.  The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow and it is our responsibility to ensure that our policies reflect the values of equality, justice and compassion.

However, for the Disability Bill and the proposed Commission to be truly effective, we must ensure the following:

Adequate funding – the Commission must be provided with sufficient resources to carry out its mandate effectively. This includes funding for staffing, training and outreach programmes.

Inclusivity in appointments – the members of the Commission should include persons with disabilities, ensuring that those who are directly affected by these policies have a say in their formulation and implementation.

Clear mandates and accountability – the Commission’s roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined with mechanisms for accountability and transparency.  This will build trust and ensure that the Commission operates with integrity and efficiency.

Collaboration with stakeholders – the Commission should work closely with other Government agencies, non-governmental organisations and international bodies to leverage resources and expertise.

In conclusion Madam Speaker Ma’am, this Disability Bill along with the establishment of a Disability Commission represents a significant step towards creating a more inclusive and equitable Zimbabwe.  Let us seize this opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the rights and dignity of all citizens.  By passing this Bill, we are not just enacting a law, we are affirming the values of our nation and paving the way for a brighter and more inclusive future.  I submit.

THE HON. SPEAKER:   Thank you.  If I could have a word with the Leader of Government Business, the Hon. Minister Ziyambi.  As he approaches the Chair, I notice that we are very glued to our cellphones.  Watch other Parliaments, they do not even bring their cellphones inside the House.  So, you need to learn to listen to the debate so that you can then have better insights or otherwise, on the subject matter before you.  Please be so guided accordingly.  You must listen like Hon. Tshuma who listened very well to what Hon. Malinganiso was saying.  He was not twitting on his cellphone.  So, please can we listen to each other and take the debate seriously even if you do not agree to what is being said.  Your turn will come and then you forward your own ideas. 

HON. I. NDUDZO:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I will seek your indulgence to refer to my mobile gadget from time to time because it is the source of the Bill which I have in electronic form. 

It is my view that we need to appreciate the Hon. Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare for bringing to this House this important proposed legislation on persons with disabilities.  It is my considered view that the alignment of legislation with the provisions of Section 22 of our Constitution has been long overdue.  The 2013 Constitution reached a milestone in that for the first time in Zimbabwe, we have a Constitutional provision that comprehensively provides within the Bill of Rights for the protection of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.  It is, therefore, a most welcome development that at this point and in the life of the 10^th Parliament, we have a Bill that seeks to build upon and expand on the provisions of Section 22 of our Constitution.  I also note Mr. Speaker, that the Bill incorporates and expands on the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  This is important for us to have municipal legislation which aligns very well to the internationally set standards and legislation on the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

         While I note that a preamble does not form part of the operative part of a statute, there is no harm Madam Speaker, for the inclusion of the provisions of Section 22 of our Constitution as a preamble to the provisions of the proposed legislation. 

Further, Madam Speaker, it is important that the Bill seeks to entrench a human rights-based approach to the provisions that cater for the needs of persons with disabilities.         I, however, submit that the Act or the Bill needs to go beyond merely exhorting the Minister and the officers reposed with the responsibility of carrying into effect, the provisions of the legislation to do the best that they can in given circumstances. 

Rather, we must be able to legislate with specificity on the entitlements and rights that must be enjoyed by persons with disabilities. For example, Madam Speaker, the Bill makes mention of the rights to equality and non-discrimination in Section 17 of the Bill.  In my view, we need to interrogate the root causes of the absence of equality and the causes of discrimination.  Often a times, it is easy to speak of discrimination against adult persons but if we do not address the causes of discrimination at a lower level, we will find ourselves unable to combat discrimination. 

         It is therefore my view that we need to have a relook at the provisions of the Bill that speak to health and to education.  I do not believe that it is beyond the means of our blessed and resourceful nation to make specific provisions that provide for an obligation on the part of the State, to provide for a mandatory obligation on the part of the State to fully fund the education of all children with disabilities – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] -  We must also look at the clause that makes provisions for health.  People with disabilities often struggle with ailments in one form or the other.  There is also need to specifically obligate the State to fully fund and provide for all the medical needs of children and adults with disabilities.

         Further, Madam Speaker, we often come across instances where children and adults with disabilities are often subject to exploitation and abuse within their family contexts.  Often times as we drive, at robot intersections, we find persons with disabilities being wheeled off either in wheel chairs or those who are visually impaired being used as a means or as objects of pity to be able to beg on those forums. 

The Bill must be specific in coming up with measures that completely eliminate those forms of exploitation.  Often times, those situations arise because there is lack of adequate provision, there is lack of support to the needs and the resources that are required by persons with disabilities.  It is therefore, my submission that the Bill must specifically speak to the issue of provision and at the same time must specifically eliminate those acts of exploitation and come up with clear measures that address that issue.

         It is also my view Madam Speaker, that whilst the Bill makes a welcome provision to come up with an assistance fund for persons with disabilities and with clear provisions on how the funds that are paid and that are coming out of that fund ought to be utilised, I think we need to go beyond mere administrative expenditure and charitable provisions for children with disabilities and adult persons with disabilities but rather, with part of the funds, we must allow the Commission that is being established.  We must give it the right and permission to even invest part of the funds in profit bearing ventures and instruments so that apart from dependence on the fiscus, the fund must be able to generate further income on its own, which can be utilised to assist the plight of persons with disabilities.  I therefore, propose that there be an expansion of the scope and the powers and functions of the fund.

         Madam Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Minister for the proposal to depart from the board and move in the direction of a Commission.  Madam Speaker, we know that whilst our Constitution makes provisions for constitutional Commissions, we are also quite alive to the fact that in terms of our law, it is permissible to have Commissions that derive their authority and mandate from legislation and from statute.  I am very happy that the Persons with Disabilities Bill is making that move from a board.  Ordinarily, a board is not actively involved in the functions of an institution.  Ordinarily, a board is confined to a review of what would have been done by the Executive.

         A Commission is involved very closely, on a day-to-day decision making. It has the power to make decisions more expeditiously and to be more involved.  In my respectful view, it is important that we appreciate that the Bill establishes a Commission for persons with disabilities.  However, Madam Speaker, in my view, it is important to make sure that when we speak of persons with disabilities, we also place them at the centre stage of whatever Commission or board reposed with the powers to determine their matters. In my view, we must ensure that at all times, the majority of members in the Commission are actually persons with disabilities. I note that the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) and the provisions of Section 4 (1) and (h), speak to seven members appointed by the Hon. Minister and to an additional two persons who can also be coopted by the Commission but the view falls short of specific mention of the fact that those persons must actually be persons with disabilities.

We do not want to speak of women issues and affairs without women being in the majority. We do not want to speak of issues that affect the youth without the youth being in the majority. Similarly, we must not speak of issues that relate to persons with disabilities without persons with disabilities being in the majority. Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between organisations and institutions that deal with issues of persons with disabilities and persons who actually are with disabilities.

         Madam Speaker, I also rise to appreciate the specific inclusion in the Bill of children with disabilities and the specific mention of the fact that in all matters that relate to their interest and welfare, the best interest of children with disabilities must be the overriding principle. We need to make sure that we further deepen and entrench this principle because it is the basis upon which we have an assurance that children with disabilities are safeguarded from exploitation and from abuse.

         I also want to appreciate the specific inclusion in the Bill of women and girls with disabilities. Madam Speaker, you can imagine that even until today, our society is grappling with issues of inclusivity and equality that relates to women and girls. You can imagine the disadvantaged, the discrimination that is suffered by a woman and a girl who have the additional disadvantage of being a disabled person. So, the specific mention of these as needing that extra layer of protection and support is important, but we must go beyond merely mentioning and urging the Minister and the Commission to do everything within their endeavour. However, we must be able to make specific provisions that are tangible that are justiciable that one can rely on enforcing the existence of the rights that might be enshrined in the Bill.

I, therefore, urge the Hon. Minister to go and do more to add to the rights so that a young woman, a girl living with a disability can be able to stand and enumerate with specificity, the rights and entitlement accorded to them in terms of the legislation that we must ultimately come up with in this House.

         I want to submit that it is very easy to speak of the deed to make sure that there is non-discrimination and there is equality when it comes to employment opportunities, empowerment opportunities and other opportunities. What we need to do is to make sure that we give persons with disability, a competitive advantage in terms of making sure that they achieve skills, they acquire the necessary education and life support skills that enable them to be able not just to compete, but to better off in society.

         THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. I. Ndudzo, you are only left with 5 minutes.

         HON. I. NDUDZO: Thank you Madam Speaker, it is therefore important that when we speak of the rights that we have accorded to persons with disabilities, we must be clearer. I am aware that the State runs a number of scholarships programmes and a number of empowerments programmes. I think we must legislate in specific detail that whatever funds which are provided for scholarships, empowerment projects and programmes, we must be very clear that a certain percentage is specifically ring-fenced and reserved for persons with disabilities. That is the only way in which we will go beyond the mere words, mere provisions and make sure that there is functionality of our objectives. More-so, we must be able to interrogate and audit the provisions that would have been made from time to time by the State to see if there is compliance with the provisions.

Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I want to thank the Hon. Minister and I want to believe that we are moving in the right direction and we need to attend to the issues. Those would be my submissions.

⁺HON. MAVUNGA: Thank you Madam Speaker. Before I start, I would like to express my gratitude to the Government Ministry that looks after the affairs of the persons with disabilities because they are now looking at enacting a law that takes care of such people. I am glad that they have realised that the current law is outdated. Before I proceed further, I also would like to thank other Hon. Members who spoke before me and expressed their views eloquently. Their views teach us on how this Bill should be put.

Because of that, please allow me not to dwell further in exposing the shortcomings of that Bill, but let me express the positive aspect of the Bill. Firstly, I am glad that this Bill will give persons living with disabilities access…

         +HON. NYATHI: Point of order.  I would like to correct Hon. Mavunga.  It is not people who are disabled but people with disabilities.  It is not disabled persons.

         THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Thank you Honourable.  I am sure Hon. Mavunga has taken note of that.  Hon. Mavunga, please may you proceed.

         +HON. MAVUNGA: Thank you Madam Speaker, it shows that people are paying attention to my views as I debate. One other thing that I like about this Bill is giving access to people with disabilities.  For example, when it comes to sports especially football, people with disabilities struggle to enter stadiums and such arenas.  For a wheel chair bound person, they will sit close to the players themselves yet they cannot even go to the VIP section where people will be eating nice food.  In some buildings, especially Government buildings, people with wheelchairs and crutches cannot get easy access also. I believe this Bill seeks to rectify this so that people with disabilities will be able to enter buildings or sports facilities.  I am also glad that this Bill seeks to put it clearly and expose things that affect people with disabilities such as empowerment opportunities.

         People with disabilities are left behind because there will be so much competition and chaos with people without disabilities.  I am glad that this law or Bill speaks to a Commission that will look after the affairs of people with disabilities. I am also glad that this Bill looks at the education of people with disabilities.  You will find out that in most of our communities, there are very few schools that cater for people with disabilities.  Such schools also tend to be very expensive that most of the people cannot afford them.

         I am also glad that they are also looking at giving a fund and giving free education to people with disabilities.  So, I am very happy with this Bill and let us look at this Bill as an august House so that we include everything that is supposed to be included in the Bill.  I would like to thank you for this opportunity that you have given me.  I thank you.

         HON. V. MOYO: Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity. I rise to give support on this Bill.  Section 119 of our Constitution mandates us as Parliament to uphold the Constitution. Section 22 is very explicit on the rights of people living with disabilities.  I would like to commend Parliament and the Ministry for the effort that was made to gather as much views on issues that have to do with the people living with disabilities.

         However, I think the one district approach is only but a minute reflection of these views.  Looking at how scattered some of our provinces are, I believe we could have done more, also taking into cognisance the fact that these are people with special needs and are so vulnerable. You could imagine, Madam Speaker, in Matabeleland North, Nkayi was the chosen district and I am looking at those people who come from as far as Binga and Hwange.

         I believe there is need for us to also reflect and review our one district approach, especially on issues that have to do with people with special needs and are very vulnerable. This Bill I believe, will go a long way in mitigating the stigma that is associated with disability.

         Clause 2 talks about the definition of disability which is derived from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD). This definition does not include other forms of disability like albinism, epilepsy and even psychiatric disability. So our National Disability Policy actually does include this definition.  So, my prayer is to say, let us make sure that as we define, we go over and above the United Nations definition and also include these that I have also mentioned.

         Clause 3 talks about the establishment of a Commission that will look at issues.  It is my prayer this Commission should also be given that mandate and the power as the Chapter 12 Commissions with an addition to also consider a fair regional presentation, a fair gender representation which also includes diverse disabilities that we have in our communities. The Bill talks about a seven-member Commission and I propose that this Commission be increased to ten so that at least we have representation from every other province.

         On the education part, I am happy that some of the Hon. Members who have spoken before me have also touched on this issue, the issue of support on their education.  It should not only be confined to primary, secondary and first degree.  I believe it should go beyond and we make sure that these people, even for their Masters and PHDs, we are able to support them.

         Clause 35 talks about sign language. It is my prayer that sign language be introduced in our own education curriculum at primary level so that we have a basic understanding of how to converse with people with  the disability of deafness and problems of speech. I would propose that we have sign language interpreters in most of our public institutions, hospitals and police camps.  You can imagine when somebody who has a challenge with speech has to report a case in a police station where there is no one who is able to converse with them. 

         I would implore our Government to make sure that at least most of our public institutions have people with basic understanding   to converse with people living with such incapacitation.   

         In conclusion Madam Speaker Ma’am, I want to urge the Commission, when fully operational, to come up with a register of everyone who is living with disability so that we know special cards be designed for easy identification.  With these few words, I so submit.  I thank you. 

         THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (HON. DINHA):  Madam Speaker, I move that the debate do now adjourn.   

         Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 10^th September, 2024.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

         HON. KAMBUZUMA: I move that Orders of the Day, Numbers 4 to 9 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until Order of the Day Number10 is disposed of.

         HON.  NYANDORO:  I second Madam Speaker.

         Motion put and agreed to. 

MOTION

APPROVAL FOR THE ACCESSION OF THE CHARTER ESTABLISHING SADC WOMEN IN, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION

         THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF HIGHER AND TERTIARY EDUCATION, INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (HON. S. SIBANDA):    Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to move a motion on SADC Charter on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. 

         WHEREAS Section 327 (2) of the Constitution provides that any Convention, Treaty or Agreement acceded to conclude or executed by or under authority of the President with one or more foreign States or Government or international organisations shall be subject for approval by Parliament; 

         WHEREAS the Government of Zimbabwe has agreed to become a member of SADC Women in Engineering, Science and Technology Organisation and;

         WHEREAS the terms of the Charter establishing SADC Women in Science, Engineering and Technology provides that the Charter remains open for signature for new members; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in terms of Section 327 (2) of the Constitution, this House resolves that, the afore said Charter be and is hereby approved for accession. I so submit. 

         Motion put and agreed to.

On the motion of HON. KAMBUZUMA, seconded by HON. HADEBE, the House adjourned at Fourteen Minutes to Five o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 10^th September, 2024.