• Version
• Download 1
• File Size 382.23 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date December 18, 2024
• Last Updated March 12, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 18 DECEMBER 2024 VOL 51 NO 21

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Wednesday, 18^th December, 2024

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

PRAYERS

(THE ACTING SPEAKER in the Chair)

COMMITTEE STAGE

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL [H. B. 12, 2024]

First Order read: Resumption of Committee: Finance (No. 2) Bill [H. B. 12, 2024].

House in Committee.

Clause 31:

HON. MUSHORIWA: On a point of order Madam Chair.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): What is your point of order?

HON. MUSHORIWA: I just want confirmation. Is the Leader of the House standing in for the Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion? I do not seem to be seeing him.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I thought the Leader of Government Business’s responsibilities include such.

HON. MUTSEYAMI: On a point of order Madam Chair.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: What is your point of order?

HON. MUTSEYAMI: Why is the Hon. Minister of Finance and his Deputy not in the House? We were all here together and we all left at 5am. May the Leader of Government Business tell us what kept them?

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Your point of order is overruled.

Clause 31 put and agreed to.

On Clause 32:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you so much. The proposal under Clause 32 is where the Hon. Minister wants to amend the collection of Value Added Tax so that the period should be reduced from 30 days to 15 days. I want to say that moving from 20 days to 15 days, I think it is an abrupt and so huge a cut. My suggestion would be that the Hon. Minister should consider to reduce this period but maybe we need to put 20 days rather than on the 15^th because practically, it will have a bigger problem within the various tax payers to meet such a deadline and also bearing in mind that they have been using a 30-day cycle and all of a sudden they are then asked to make sure that they submit and if they do the payments by the 15^th, I think cutting it by half may have an impact and also the undesired  consequence in respect to the revenue generation for Treasury. I urge the Hon. Minister to consider revising it upwards from the 15^th to the 20^th so that it is gradual. We move from 30 days to 20. We can then reconsider it in the Mid-Term review whether there is a need to then go down to 156 depending on the performance in the industry. Thank you

HON. TOGAREPI: Madam Chair, on this one, I think my view is these institutions are a conduit pipe, this is not their money, they are not taking it from their assets. It is money they have collected on behalf of Government. Why giving them a lot of time to keep money that is not theirs and end up defaulting? Let them pay on time we want the money and look after our people using that money, why keep it? My proposal is the 15 days is good enough, this is not their money. It is the money they have received on behalf of Government. Let them pay the money.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I think …

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I need to recognise you.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Madam Chair. I think for us to make a conclusive understanding of this is to first understand what was the reason for the collection of Value Added Tax on important services to be paid within 30 days in the first instance? I think that is very important, to understand the rationale behind the 30-day period before we move on to the 15-day period. I am sure the Minister will explain from his experience. I thank you. 

^*HON. MATINENGA:  Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I would like to support what was said by Hon. Mushoriwa because VAT is calculated from all invoices for he month. Some customers pay the following month. The old system used to give an opportunity of 25 days to ensure that business people collect all the money first. Most businesses get paid immediately for invoices or hey get paid the following month. Payment of VAT by the zol allows business people to collect all the money in respect of previous month sales. I so submit.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, I reject the proposal by Hon. Mushoriwa, this is money that companies are collecting on behalf of Government.  I do not see any reason, or any effect that is going to happen by extending the period of remittance..  In fact, as Government we want to collect our monies instantly. In future, we are looking at technologies actually that would allow that as soon as the money gets into your bank, Government dues will be deducted and deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.  I do not think that it has any effect because we are moving towards where in real-time, if you sell something for 20 dollars, our value added tax immediately will be deducted into the ZIMRA account. As for the rationale, it was just a custom, there was no magic formula really to say why the 30 days.

It is not everything that was being paid in 30 days, some of the monies that were collected could actually have been paid for in 3 days because not every transaction would have been on credit terms.    It is not like that every sale made would be paid in 30 days. Some of the collections would actually have been paid for much earlier than others.  So I believe there is no prejudice as for the assertion that some invoices would not have been paid, ZIMRA agrees to have arrangements for such scenarios so that businesses do not suffer.  I believe that way it is appropriate for now.  I submit Hon. Chair.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank Hon. Chair, I hear what the Hon. Minister is saying.  Look here, you will find that in the previous arrangements, submission was done on the 25^th pf the day following collection we are already in December, these companies would have arranged credit terms of sales to their debtors.  As such, when you sell, you account for output tax VAT and then when you purchase, you also deduct input tax and you will remit the difference to ZIMRA.  So my issue here Hon. Minister is, when you make those credit sales, it does not mean you will get the exact cash before the 15^th you had drawn your contracts in such a way that by the 25^th of the following month  from the sales, you would have to get the actual cash for remittance to ZIMRA.

What I am saying is that if you just change the dates abruptly to say from right now, the Bill will become an Act and is applicable by the 15^th of January and with such a short period, you come and say on the 15^th we need our cash.  I think it disturbs the way of doing business

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Madzivanyika, you are repeating what you said in your first contributions, I think for the sake of time …

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I think the Hon. Minister is understanding where I am going exactly.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: He has responded in the same manner.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: The Hon. Member was with ZIMRA, he knows that companies can have arrangements.  There is nothing that is fatally defective about this, it enhances Government collections.  I think let us try it and if it does not work, then we review it in June.  Let us proceed Hon. Chair.

HON. MUSHORIWA: We seek further clarification from the Hon. Minister.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Switch off your microphone, I recognise the Government Chief Whip.

HON. TOGAREPI: Madam Speaker, we are just looking at what Government is trying to do, we are also looking at risk management.  We have those collecting agencies who are collecting on behalf of Government who would default in remitting to ZIMRA. It could be another way and I do not see us as Hon. Members who would advocate and protect institutions that are holding Government money instead of giving it to Government so that Government does what is necessary for the people of Zimbabwe.

It is a risk management measure as well, if you reduce the period of remittance, you are actually dealing with the risk of these people abusing Government resources.  So, I do not see why we should take our time on this issue. Surely, those who have an issue can make arrangements with ZIMRA.  The most important part is that we need the money like yesterday.  As Hon. Members, we need to protect that. 

HON. DR. KHUPE: Thank you very much Madam Chair.  The Clause is saying it is moving from 30 days to 15 days. Hon. Mushoriwa suggested that it be 20 days. It is just a difference of 5 days like what the Minister said, let us maintain the 15 days and then review as we go forward because this money is for Government and Government would want to use this money so I would want to go with the proposal that let us maintain the 15 days.  There is no big difference, it is just 5 days difference and then we review as we move forward.  

*HON. MAPIKI: Thank you Madam Chair.  In Kenya they are using digital system.  As soon as you pay, it is immediately deducted.  It is not proper that we leave our money to benefit some people whilst it is being spinned somewhere else. Why are they defending these people because we want money?  In some areas, they use artificial intelligence; that is why we are saying let us move away from other systems to use digital.  I am just wondering why they are trying to defend these aspects. Let us move to 15 days and progress.

HON. JAMES: Thank you Madam Chair. It is not a matter of defending something or holding on to the money. It is a matter of practicality, some fiscal machines are not as reliable as we would hope, they need to be repaired. Can I ask the Hon. Minister, reviewing it in six months is probably a good idea but are there penalties involved in this?  If somebody does pay beyond the 15^th of that month are there penalties involved?

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. James, you need to repeat your question so that the Hon. Minister can get what you are trying to day.  Please speak a bit louder.

         Hon. James repeated his question.

         HON. JERE: Thank you so much Madam Speaker. I think we are missing something in as far as this amendment is concerned. The Minister is right, especially when you look at the KYC which is being applied the world-over. Even yesterday, the Minister said some of these clauses do not work in isolation, you can always make an arrangement with ZIMRA even if they had said on receipt of funds and you failed to remit the money.

You should always be in contact with your Account Relationship Manager from ZIMRA. It is not cast in stone and you can make an arrangement which can even go for up to six months. We are doing or practicing it, so there is nothing new here. Now, if you leave someone to go with the money for the Government for 30 days and there is no appearance, what the Minister is trying to do is for us, as soon as you raise your invoice, you should be in contact with your Account Relationship Manager at tax to say no, I cannot pay now because I have these issues. You can make payment arrangements.

So it is neither here nor there, the issue of 15 – 30 days but he is trying to reduce the number of days so that we are always in contact because people are becoming sophisticated. A person can disappear within a month after collecting a lot of taxes, so this is a good arrangement because it is also supported by other clauses where you are saying you can make an arrangement with your manager at ZIMRA. We all have got them. So this is a good arrangement.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I think we have done justice to this debate.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Jere is very correct. I think let us not look at this in isolation. I indicated that the ideal situation is that with technology, we will be going towards collecting taxes in real-time. So what you are advocating for, we are already moving towards collecting VAT in real-time but in any system, you have people that you deal with like what Hon. Jere said. You have Account Relationship Managers at ZIMRA that you can discuss and negotiate on specific challenges that you face. I believe they are very responsive. I have done it also and I have found that they are very responsive and helpful. I think we are now debating in futility. We are just going round and round. Can we proceed, this is very reasonable, given that we are now moving towards collection in real-time technology and funds permitting? I submit.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I have heard what the Hon. Minister is saying but he needs to take cognisance of two fundamental issues. When you say that you are moving to automatic deduction, it means the Government and the example that Hon. Mapiki used of Kenya, the Government actually invested in that technology. The current set up that we have in Zimbabwe is that VAT is actually collected on behalf of the Government, the administration is done on behalf of the Government and there is no payment in terms of the administration costs.

         Naturally, it is prudent and the reason why I was saying let us push it from 15 to 20 days was to accommodate this. The second issue that is also related to it, you cannot have a law where you give ZIMRA discretion. Law should be law and should actually say within such a period. To argue to say no, we should then go to your Relationship Manager and try to negotiate. I do not think that is how the law should operate. The law should just be law, which should be read by anyone from Mutoko to Plumtree and just understand that is what the law says, rather than go to the extent of saying let us leave room.

         Whilst I am there Hon. Minister, you are aware that in the early hours of today, we actually agreed to remove some of the provisions of this Bill which tended to give discretional powers to ZIMRA and we are simply saying we cannot have a law that is discretional in nature.

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: My response is the same as previously, let us proceed.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Please, with your indulgence…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, we need to proceed.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: So you are denying me the opportunity to air my views on this important issue?

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I gave you several opportunities. The reason I am denying you is because the last time I gave you the opportunity, you repeated what you had already said.

         HON. TAFANANA ZHOU: We cannot be laboured by Hon. Madzivanyika. He runs a tax consultancy in Kwekwe, so he is an interested party. For reference, you can check from his profile. It is there.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, order Hon. Members. We need to progress.

         Clause 32 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 33:

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: The same argument that we raised on the previous one arises. My issue Madam Chair is, if you fail to submit returns on time, you cannot liaise with ZIMRA because it is statutory. Let me be very clear, these are statutory obligations and if you fail to submit returns on time, penalties and interests will accrue. Under the circumstances, we have just approved a penalty of US$30 per day for non-submission of returns. So those penalties are statutory and you cannot liaise with ZIMRA to say do not charge me. It will be in the system.

What we were saying to the Hon. Minister is that we understand that the revenue belongs to ZIMRA, belongs to the Government. These companies are just agents on behalf of Government. We are aware of that but we are saying given the circumstances that we have, we must understand how these operate. We do not have to make that abrupt change. Now that we are in December, we are left with only two weeks to January. If we make an abrupt change, we disturb business.  Can we move maybe to the first of February 2025 than 1^st of January 2025.  That was our argument. It is true that VAT belongs to the Government, we know but when we are changing policy, we must also allow business to adjust in light of credit sale contracts which are currently running.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Madzivanyika, when you are debating, do not say ‘our’ say ‘your’. It is your argument.

         HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you Hon. Chairperson. I think whatever we are discussing here resonates on the same point to say, for ZIMRA to be in good operational standards, we should be consistent with our systems.

         I think what is being said by Hon. Madzivanyika is true, we are arguing for nothing here. We should have consistence in our systems, which is very clear.  To go and negotiate with ZIMRA Client Service Manager is something else. What I think is, there is need to be on spot on issues to do with statutory obligations. The best thing is to have consistency in our accounting systems.  I thank you.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I recognise Hon. Mushoriwa.  Before you debate, Hon. Mushoriwa, can I correct you on something?  You do not need to remain standing even if you are burning.  You need to take your seat; you have been standing all the time.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  No, I was not.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  You have been standing.  Please proceed and when you finish, please take your seat. - [HON. TAFANANA ZHOU: Inaudible interjections.] -

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Madam Chair, can Hon. Tafanana Zhou withdraw his statement?  He should not take advantage that you are in the Chair.  He should withdraw, he has been abusing people and he started with Hon. Madzivanyika.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Tafanana Zhou, can you withdraw what you have just said?

         HON. TAFANANA ZHOU: Madam Chair, thank you very much but he must not point a finger at other Members in the House – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - I withdraw Madam Chair.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Honourable Zhou.  Hon. Mushoriwa, please proceed.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair. Hon. Minister, let us assume – we are not going to make the same argument because you do not seem to want to hear our point of view.  My position is to simply say, if you insist that the 30 days be reduced to 15 days, I think there is a fundamental issue.  You cannot say with effect from 1^st January. 

         Can we then agree on a breathing space to then say from 1^st April 2025, to allow that transition? We need to at least get that compromise.  We agree and we go by your position but at least let us allow business the transition period.  I thank you.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): |Thank you Hon. Chair.  This clause is exactly the same as the previous one.  I am not in agreement to change anything, I submit.

         Clause 33 put and agreed to. 

         On Clause 34:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Madam Chair.  I think Clause 34 is actually in my view, not a progressive amendment. This Clause says that the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe, Government, ministry departments as well as any other company or organisation which procures goods should, by the 10^th of every month, do a return to the Commissioner General detailing tenders.  I think that is going overboard Madam Chair.

         Also, giving the 10^th of every month, even assuming we want to agree to that but giving the 10^th, I think it is just too much.  Remember Hon. Chair, these are the same companies that you need to work on the issue of the administration of VAT, they have to do their returns as we have agreed by the 15^th.  We then ask them to make sure that they submit their tender documents and all the things that they have done by the 10^th. 

These are the same people that we are also asking for loans of above $20 000.  So, my proposal is to say I would really love to have this clause expunged.  If the Hon. Minister cannot expunge this, can we then move that we amend the 10^th day to at least the 15^th day because the administration work that we are putting on the companies is too …

The Hon. Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs having left his seat to approach the legal bench.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Hon. Mushoriwa, you might need to hold on a bit so that the Hon. Minister can capture what you are saying and be able to respond.

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: On a point of order Madam Chair.  I am just concerned at this rate, are we going to finish?  Is it not prudent to speak to the Minister of Finance so that he comes because I think he is more hands-on, on these issues? 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Order, order.  Can we all take our seats?  Just to remind you, we are on Clause 34 Amendment of Section 30 Chapter 23.12.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Chair.  Before I go back to the Clause, I think it is prudent and fair to this august House.  The Hon. Minister just stood and then Business of the House was interrupted.  I do not think for the fairness of this House, the Hon. Minister should explain why he ended up having a break which was not even advised by the Hon. Chair.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Is that your debate?

         HON. MUSHORIWA: No, have not gone to the debate because….

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Please proceed with your debate Hon. Mushoriwa.  I gave you the opportunity to debate but now you are raising a point of order.  Can you proceed with the debate?

         HON. MUSHORIWA: No, can I say…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  When you are saying no it means that you do not want to continue.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I want to raise pertinent issues that are guided by the Constitution and our Standing Orders.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERON:  Order Hon. Mushoriwa.  I am sure you are not prepared to debate – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – We need to proceed. 

         HON. MUSHORIWA: We want to debate Hon. Chair but we want to raise a pertinent issue.  Why are we…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Mushoriwa to begin with, you stand up and start talking even without having been recognised.  Is there any objection to this Clause?

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Yes, there is an objection.  I object that we do not want this Clause 34 to pass as it is.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Mushoriwa, you need to speak for yourself – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order.  If you agree, you will show your intention to debate.  Hon. Mushoriwa please proceed.

HON. MUSHORIWA: We do not believe Chair that Clause 34 as it appears in the Bill is progressive and a good law.  First and foremost, the Hon. Minister needs to take this House through and explain to us what the mischief is and what this Clause tends to fix.  We believe that this Clause in the manner that it is, is going to create a lot of administrative work, not only for the Government but for all companies that participate and procure goods and services through a tender system.  So by the 10^th of every month, they have to do a return to Commissioner General.  I believe that this Clause should be expunged from this Bill unless the Minister can explain to this august House what the mischief that this Clause tends to fix is. 

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  From my side, I think the Clause is a good one that is my understanding.  In what way, have we been having challenges with tenders?  Someone gets a tender and is not taxed.  He is walking scot free and there is no taxation on that person.  We have raised this issue over and over again. I think it is a good step in the right direction to say that every Government agency must tender a return to ZIMRA to say we have awarded the tender to so and so for this month.

 I am sure the Public Accounts Committee needs to take advantage of this situation to make sure that they request this information from ZIMRA on a monthly basis so that they also follow up. We do not want a situation whereby we end up waiting for the Auditor General’s Report at the end of the year to see what happened in two years or so, it is historical.  I fully support this Clause and think that it is a good step in the right direction.

HON. JERE: Thank you so much Madam Speaker Ma’am. This is a very important Clause as far as revenue collection is concerned. Transactions are not as straight as some of us might think. They are very complicated, especially transactions to do with tender transactions due to milestone payments. That is going to help the Commissioner to know when to expect revenue from a particular supplier. This is because  not all suppliers are paid instantly. Some are paid after every six months. After completing a certain task, you get paid.

In terms of checking and following up on revenue from both sides, from the company that is declaring tax which is the company that has been awarded the tender and the procurement entity. This is going to play quite a big role in terms of revenue. It is a very important Clause that should remain there. Thank you so much.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL, AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. Hon. Madzivanyika and Hon. Jere have summed it up correctly. That is mischief to say if you get a tender, the entity that awarded you a tender must inform the Commissioner General. The Commissioner will then be able to follow when payments are being made and be able to collect taxes like what Hon. Jere said, it is not straightforward. Tenders have got terms and conditions of when payments may be done.

They may not be done at once and it may be staggered. The mischief is to ensure that those that are awarded pay to the revenue authorities what is due to them. I want to thank those who are in the business and know what needs to be done to clarify so that Hon. Mushoriwa can understand.

   Clause 34 put and agreed to

   Clause 35 put and agreed to.

On Clause 36:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Chair. This amendment refers to the issue of how to deal with seized goods. There is a provision that seized goods can now be disposed of within 60 days of their seizure by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. My argument on this one is on the issue of seized goods.  In the circumstances that my goods are seized today by the ZIMRA, first of all, I am allowed at law to make representations to the ZIMRA to the effect that I seek their indulgence to recuse me of the offence or reduce the penalties or to charge me some fine for me to collect my goods. ZIMRA administratively requires 14 days to do that, at Regional Manager’s level. If I am not satisfied with the decision of the Regional Manager, I am entitled to appeal to the Commissioner General. The Commissioner General also requires another 14 days to determine my appeal.

It therefore means that I need a minimum of 28 working days, excluding weekends. It therefore means a whole month can be set aside from the 60-day period that is allowed by the law to dispose the goods. I can spend the whole month without getting a response from ZIMRA, yet the law is saying that within 60 days my goods can be disposed. I was of the opinion that can we increase the days to at least 90 days to ensure that the process of appeal happens without any prejudice to both the taxpayer and ZIMRA?

*HON. MUTSEYAMI:  On a point of order Madam Chair. May the Hon. Leader of Government Business place Mr. Dias somewhere close to him. We left this place around 5 a.m. and it looks like we are going to spend the whole night here. May Mr. Dias sit close to the Minister for easy consultations?

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Your idea is good but as you know, it is not Mr. Dias alone. It is a team with many people as you can see.

HON. JAMES:  Point of order Madam Chair. Has the Minister got the authority to make any concessions on what we are debating today or it is left for the Minister of Finance? If he has got no authority…

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Sorry Hon. James. I cannot get what you are saying. Hon. Members, can you allow him to be heard in silence and you might need to speak up.

HON. JAMES:  Thank you Chair. I am asking whether the Leader of Government Business has the authority to make any concessions on what we are debating here today. If he does not have authority, should we not suspend the debate until the Minister is here or until another time?

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  We have already addressed that. The Leader of Government Business has the authority to be responding to debates in the House.

HON. MUSHORIWA:  On a point of order Madam Chair. I would want to seek clarification pertaining to what you have said. If you read section 305, it says the Minister of Finance ‘must’ and it is very specific. I am not so sure which provision of the law you are relying on that the Minister of Finance can be replaced by the Leader of the House.

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Mushoriwa, I cannot keep repeating myself.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Chair, the provision that Hon. Madzivanyika is making reference to is already in the Act. It is not a new amendment but we have added the proviso that stipulates  that if the imported goods have been abandoned, then they can be auctioned, or disposed of after 14 days. The first one that you made reference to is already part of our law. What is new is what follows between lines 30 and 35, which reads, ‘provided that goods found abandoned shall be disposed of’. That is what we need. The proviso for goods to be conveyed to a state warehouse if entry and payment of duty in not made within 60 says is ready in place.

HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you Madam Chair. I am sorry I think I am requesting Hon. Minister Ziyambi to repeat again. I did not get him clearly on the disposal; number of days of abandoned goods.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: You want him to repeat?

HON. MUWODZERI: Yes, this is my request.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Do you have the Finance Bill with you? If you do, I want you to refer you to Clause 36 and between lines 30 and 35, which is what the Hon. Minister read.

HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you very much.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: You are welcome.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I want to make a follow up on the proviso by the Hon. Minister. I do not have a problem with abandoned goods and the 14 day period which suffices. I have got a small challenge on the second item of the proviso, which says the, ‘goods of no commercial value need not to be offered for sale by public auction and the Commissioner may order such goods to be sold out of hand or destroyed or appropriated to the State without payment of compensation’. The question that comes is, what do you mean by “goods of no commercial value”. What value is deemed commercial, because we do not want that ambiguity? It may happen that what I deemed to be commercial value as myself with my level of income is $500 but for someone, the commercial value may be 2 000. To avoid this ambiguity, can we tighten this law to make a clear definition to say for the avoidance of any doubt, goods of no commercial value represents so much?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Madam Chair. Hon. Madzivanyika knows what goods for commercial value are - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - There are certain times, I give an example where companies get goods for evaluation, they will be indicated ‘no commercial value’. So, there are several items that can come written ‘no commercial value’ and this has been happening, it is not a new clause that is mushrooming now. I think he knows that because he is a tax person, that this has been in existence and goods that are of no commercial value ordinarily what the clause is saying will make administrative sense.

Clause 36 put and agreed to.

Hon. Dhliwayo having stood up.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: You want to object Hon. Dhliwayo?

HON. DHLIWAYO: No, it was not an objection, I just wanted to make it clear to Hon. Madzivanyika.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: It has been overtaken.

Clauses 37 to 39 put and agreed to.

On Clause 40:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Madam Chair. The amendment of Section 223 (a) of the Customs and Excise Act tries to strengthen the issue of post clearance audits but this provision is saying that the ZIMRA will deem certain goods to be smuggled as long as there is no proof of import clearance documents. ZIMRA mentions specific entities such as wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers. The issue at hand here is that if you are found in possession of the goods which are deemed to have been smuggled, the goods can be seized by ZIMRA. For example, assuming that wholesale ABC Ltd acquires goods from South Africa, for example beers and they pay duty worth maybe thousands of US dollars. That wholesaler has got clearance papers for the imported goods and if a small retailer goes on to purchase the goods from the wholesaler who has cleared properly, under normal circumstances, when the goods are in Zimbabwe, there is no way that the retailer can be given customs clearance papers from the wholesaler because the customs papers that the wholesaler has refer to the bulk consignment that it purchased. So when the retailer buys his goods from the wholesaler, there become a challenge such that when I meet ZIMRA or police along the way, my goods can be seized because I do not have customs clearance papers. Since there are many retailers who are coming to this wholesale, how best can this law be refined to ensure that the intent is captured without violating the interest and rights of other players?

         HON.  MUKOMBERI: Thank you Madam Chair, I think the previous speaker’s mentioning of some retailers who are buying commodities classified in this Clause, also being considered as having been imported the goods is misplaced in the sense that if the retailer has bought goods from a wholesaler, the retailer will be in position of the receipts.  It means the retailer has evidence that the goods were purchased from a specified wholesaler.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Mukomberi! It is very important that the Hon. Ministers captures what you are saying and be able to respond. Just hold on a bit – [HON. MUSHORIWA: The Minister of Finance is here I saw him outside.] –Hon. Mushoriwa, if he is around the Parliament building, honestly, he must be relieving himself for something. Do you want us to deprive him of that? He will come to the House.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair, maybe to allay his fears, I am proposing that after the last sentence, we say that provided such regulations must be laid before the National Assembly within the first seven sitting days after they are made and shall be deemed to have been approved by the House.  So, if you lay them, then you know the specified goods, the regulations will now specify these goods, you need to have something and the National Assembly approves to allay the fear.  We now have a lot of smuggling that is happening.  Some of the goods are counterfeit goods which are coming in to the country. 

         You recall a couple of weeks ago or so in South Africa, some people died because of counterfeit goods.  So, the Hon. Minister is trying to kill two birds with one stone, to curb smuggling and ensure that we also have goods that are safe that pass through the normal channel in the country. I submit.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I think that the Hon. Minister forgot, I thought there was supposed to be an amendment from your side pertaining to the date. 

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: He is right, the date is supposed to be 28^th November 2024.  I thank you.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Will this be working in retrospect?

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Yes, you know it.

                  HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Will this be working in retrospect. I thought the Minister brought a Bill to Parliament for ratification. I need to be educated because I do not understand the idea of saying we use it in retrospect because it puts taxpayers at risk. I thought this was supposed to apply from the 1^st of January, 2025.

                  HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: We are now in agreement. Let us proceed with that amendment to say 28 November, 2024.

                  Amendment to Clause 40 put and agreed to.

                  Clause 40, as amended, put and agreed to.

                  Clauses 41 to 42 put and agreed to.

                  On Clause 43:

                  HON. MADZIVANYIKA: My debate arises from the rates, particularly on quarry stones which is levied at 0.5%. I think it is too little under the circumstances. If you look at the cost structure of getting quarry, it is not so sophisticated such that you can say the cost structure is so heavy handed. Can we at least raise this to 2% so that we generate revenue? That is where revenue is. We are losing our mountains but we have nothing to show for it. I submit.

                  HON. TOGAREPI: Where there is an opportunity for us to collect, let us collect especially where the investors just get those resources easily and they do not have so much cost. I think let us go to 2% and make good money out of these people.

                  THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): I concur with both interventions. Two percent, it shall be.

                  Amendment to Clause 43 put and agreed to.

                  Clause 43, as amended, put and agreed to.

                  On Clause 44:

                  HON. MUSHORIWA:  Clause 44 on paper looks okay but there are certain challenges and I will end up with my proposed amendment to this. My main worry is premised on two issues. First and foremost, you are aware that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is a board member of ZIMRA and we then have the Commissioner General submitting the report, not that it is bad but I think it has a problem of the conflict of duties. On a substantive issue, I then want to  say, we need to see this report. I was going to say that the Commissioner shall submit to the secretary responsible for finance, a quarterly report, not a monthly report on seizure of goods prescribed according to this Act and the said statement should be laid before Parliament. The reason why I want to move it from monthly to quarterly is to make sure that after every quarter, once the Commissioner General submits to the Permanent Secretary, can that report also be laid by the Minister of Finance before the august House.  – [HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Can we say to the Minister.] –

                  THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): We are getting carried away there but we are doing the right thing. We propose the following amendment and I think it will satisfy what Hon. Mushoriwa is raising. It will read ‘the Commissioner shall submit to the Minister responsible for Finance…’ because the Permanent Secretary sits on the board. We just want to cover ourselves in terms of governance.

                  Amendment to Clause 44 put and agreed to.

                  Clause 44, as amended, put and agreed to.

                  On Clause 45:

         On Clause 45:

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Chair.  I want to refer to the clause, Part 34 (f) (b) (b) which talks about the intention to seize stock of a tax debtor at any premise for failure to pay statutory penalties and accruing debt. Madam Chair, I think it is imperative to know that this provision to me is unethical and I want to call it draconian.

In what way? Hon. Chair. This country is also in debt to the tune of USD21.2 billion but it has not been curated by its creditors to the extent that they take NRZ for example. The international Financial Creditors did not say we are going to come and take NRZ or we are going to take Hwange 7 and 8 because you have failed to pay for the loans.  I think it defeats the purpose of future generation of tax income, to destroy the companies because of debt. 

I was of the opinion Hon. Chair that let us expunge this idea of seizing stock in trade because it is normal for business to have ups and downs, it is normal in business to have booms and slumps, it happens.  At least let us garnish the cash at the bank and that is reasonable.  The stock in trade is the source of my survival as a business return or entity. I do not think this is sustainable.

Hon. Chair, if we apply this provision in toto, what it means is, we need to build a very big warehouse and half of Harare will be rented by ZIMRA for the purpose of storing trading stock of businesses.  I do not think it is sustainable. We are going to have challenges of valuing that stock in trade for the purposes of giving me a notice of seizure note because when you seize my stock, you need to give me a receipt to say that you have seized my stock in trade. We are likely going to have problems in terms of valuation of those goods as well.

Lastly, Hon. Chair, this tax policy can create a situation whereby investors do not want to come to this country to invest in this country.  Investors prefer areas where their concerns are being taken into consideration and where taxation issues are noderate.

The tax man or the Government must ensure that it must also be sincere to the businesses in terms of its distress and its challenges.  It should not only be concerned about its tax, we should also consider tax payers who have been complying before and considerate.  I suggest this seizure of stock in trade be expunged from the amendment.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Thank you Hon Chair.  I thank Hon. Madzivanyika for his contribution to this Clause 45 (b) pertaining to the inability of the tax debtor to meet their obligations to the tax collector and the proposal is again to enforce compliance. 

This is about enforcing compliance.  There should be a provision for seizure of stock in trade and once the debtor is unable to pay after that seizure, ZIMRA will then write to them to say you still have not complied, we are about to auction your goods to recover what you owe the debtor.  So you are given time to respond.  If you do not respond within a reasonable amount of time specified in that correspondence, the goods are then auctioned and the monies are recovered.

I think this is a fair way to deal with this matter.  Of course ZIMRA always has the option of putting a garnishee order on the debtor’s accounts, which they are already doing anyway.  In a sense, they have that option.  If there is no money in your account – we know of situations where there is no money in the account but you continue to remain in business and continue to be a tax dodger, a tax violator. Surely, action should be taken and we feel that this is fair.  It is draconian but we hope that then, it will discourage such behaviour and encourage compliance.

HON. JAMES: Could the Hon. Minister explain seizure of goods of perishable nature? Could he perhaps insert there that seizure is only of an item that is non- perishable? We know when perishable items are seized, they are distributed.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  It is a very good point, I could not quite see, I need my glasses on.  I did not see that.  Yes, ZIMRA would not really seize perishable goods because the following day they will have perished. They would have done nothing by seizing those goods.  So, I suspect they would seize something much more durable than perishable goods.  I think that is reasonable to assume that. 

         Clause 45 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 46:

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  Hon. Minister, the payment of tax into a single account and the offsetting of tax refunds against tax liabilities - I need to draw your attention Hon. Minister, the TaRMS system at ZIMRA has actually become a problematic issue which many stakeholders have complained about.  If you also check even in respect to the Auditor-General’s report, there have been administrative problems. I am not so sure whether it is prudent, given the adverse opinion that have come from the Auditor-General pertaining to the inability of the revenue authority to even account.  We have heard situations where huge sums of money that have been transferred to the Treasury with ZIMRA failing to account to simply dissect these taxes. 

I am not also sure whether operationally, it is prudent for us to go this route or I think there still needs some work to be done.  If all things were normal, probably it will be alright but given the negative response that we have actually seen from the various tax payers and also the fact that even the Auditor-General has flagged it not once but twice in her reports.

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE):  I thank Hon. Mushoriwa for highlighting the TaRMS system.  This is a very important system that ZIMRA has introduced to improve the efficacy of the tax collection system.  Hon. Chairman, in the implementation of any system, there is bound to be hitches at the beginning, gremlins at the beginning.  The Auditor-General’s reports pertain to the beginning of the process in the implementation of the system.  The system is now running quite smoothly, there are no abnormal issues.  It is not important not to automate.

         Hon. Members here love to travel to countries like Rwanda, South Africa and they come back with great admiration as to how those countries are automating everything.  We are trying to do the same. We are making a small step in that direction.  

 I can assure Hon. Mushoriwa that if there are any glitches, those would be ironed out, but we need to automate, improve the efficiency of our tax collection system.  Being linked to TaRMS is the way to go.  I hope he is linked to TaRMS in terms of his private practice.  I thank you.

Clause 46 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 47:

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I think the issue of civil penalties, the levying is not something new.  We have done it before as Parliament, we have done it twice actually and after doing it, we also repealed that section.  What was the reason for repealing?  It is because we realised that the issuance of penalties on late submission of returns does not promote compliance.  To make matters worse Hon. Chair, we actually try to help the burdened taxpayers because there was a huge old debt with the Tax Administrator, from companies who were not complying and that of huge penalties.  Hon. Chair, you remember the maximum penalty was USD5 430 for late submission of returns. Is it worth it Hon. Chair for the Hon. Minister to introduce this clause, to reintroduce the penalties on late submission of returns yet when we introduce them when someone comes and knock at your door you remove the penalties again?

         Hon. Chair, recently we initiated two tax amnesties which were intended to remove those penalties and interests accruing from late submissions of returns.  I honestly think that this clause does not necessarily enforce compliance.  What we need to do as a recommendation, let us improve on the issue of education and let us invest in education of our taxpayers.  Are you aware that the majority of our taxpayers are not aware of how tax issues are done?  Hon. Chair, without actually penalising them, let us try to educate them more so that we reap the awards of good relationship between the taxpayer and the tax administrator.  We do not want that kind of a cat and mouse situation that if you do not do this, then I will hit, I do not think it is sustainable. 

         Hon. Chair, let us also promote a culture of offering flexible payment terms because when someone fails to pay, it maybe because of a genuine circumstance affecting her or his business.  Let us encourage flexible payment plan.  I suggest that this clause, the intention to reintroduce the USD30 dollar penalty on late submission of returns does not encourage compliance and it must be expunged. 

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE):  I want to thank Hon. Madzivanyika again for showing passion on these issues.  Hon. Chair, we have introduced education programmes to our taxpayers.  We spend a lot of money and time.  We have also introduced the TaRMS system, it is available on your mobile phone, filling out your tax returns is very easy, simple and convenient and still someone does not want to submit their tax returns.  Surely, we have invested in the system to make it easy for you.  People have been educated, we have been doing that. We even have the flexible payment terms, taxpayers do come forward to request those and they are given not in all situations, they are given flexible terms and it is still no compliance. What are we expected to do?  As taxpayers, I think we just need to be tougher.  If you look at what other tax collectors are doing – if you go to Uganda, Zambia and South Africa, do not even try United States or United Kingdom.  These kinds of fines are normal, so we are also catching up with the rest of the world in trying to enforce compliance.  I thank you. 

         Clause 47 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 48:

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Hon. Chair, yesterday the Hon. Minister of Justice, the Leader of this House, Hon. Ziyambi and the Minister of Finance went on yesterday to justify the inclusion of bringing an amendment of an Act like in this case, the Gold Trade Act, [Chapter 2103.] – Hon. Chair, I just wanted to preliminarily and simply say that this House is actually being taken advantage of.  This one, before I comment on the provision of this Bill, it would have been better if this House had actually been informed by our Portfolio Committee responsible that they could actually have done an enquiry and given us a report then guide this House.

         Hon. Chair, be that as it may, as the Hon. Minister said, the matter is still sub judice, but I wanted to say that in respect to the provision of Clause 48, the Minister seeks to create what is called the Gold Trade Enforcement Unit.  The members shall be drawn from members of staff certified by the Minister of Finance and also officers of the Zimbabwe Republic Police nominated by the Commissioner General.  First and foremost, if you look at that because I think standard-wise you want a situation where if you say some are nominated by the Minister of Finance, instead of getting to the Commissioner General of Police, would it not be prudent to also then say that the Minister of Home Affairs, in consultation with the Commissioner General of Police?  I think there is a need to be a relationship that exists at ministerial level. 

         Hon. Chair, tied to that, I am also not so sure whether these ones, the police and those members selected by the Minister of Finance, should they be the only ones that should actually be found in this unit or this unit needs to be expanded?  My view is that there is need for an expansion and this House was going to be well educated should there be an enquiry into this issue.  Tied to this Hon. Chair, some of the directions of Gold Enforcement Unit, I am not so sure whether they will help or not.  I am saying this because you will see that they will also have the power of seizure of gold pending prosecution and forfeiture. 

         Hon. Chair, we need to deal with the smuggling of our gold.  I am also saying that the system and mechanism that we use – we should not create more problems in or bid to solve one problem.  This is the reason why I think that there was need for wider consultation.  If you then go to page 36 under the audit of the fund’s accounts, I am aware that the Hon. Minister of Finance has been against the proliferation of several funds.  In this case, I want the audit of funds so that this one says that the accounts of the funds shall be audited by the Auditor General.  I want to make sure that on (1) that the accounts of the fund shall be audited by the Auditor General and you remove all the other things.  The rational of having this fund audited by the Auditor General is that it then becomes public record, the Auditor General’s report is submitted before Parliament. I think under the circumstances …

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PRO. M. NCUBE):  Hon. Chair, if I can seek your indulgence, Hon. Mushoriwa, that is an important point.  Could you repeat where you are reading and seek to insert this issue of the Auditor General’s role? 

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  It is on page 36 under line 17 where there is an audit of funds’ accounts.  So, we are saying that the accounts of the fund shall be audited by the Auditor General and then we delete the rest.  It is then sufficient because once they are audited by the Auditor General, all other things are covered. After all, it becomes a public document.

These are my preliminary submissions but I can tell you, this House could actually have been properly guided.  We have the Portfolio Committee responsible.  They have been given time to ventilate and get to know this issue and how to do it better  as it is, that is my submission.  Thank you.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I am sure after the Minister‘s explanation, you will be sure because you are saying you are not sure.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  I agree with Hon. Mushoriwa that we did a role for the Auditor General.  So, we should insert that.  Secondly, maybe to avoid doubts about why we needed this Clause, what is happening is that ‘taneta nembavha dziri kuba goridhe redu’.  We need to take action, which is why we are trying to establish this gold enforcing unity but we can only do it under a specific entity.  The entity here is the Fidelity which we are designating as a national refinery. 

         In terms of composition, again I agree with Hon. Mushoriwa that we could make the following amendments, we say members of staff of the gold refinery certified by the Minister responsible in terms of Section 22 here are as gold trade officers. Officers of the Zimbabwe Republic Police nominated by the Commissioner General of police in consultation with the relevant minister and then the rest follows.  That is when we would make sure that the Minister of Home Affairs is also consulted.  I take those recommendations on board.

HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  On Clause 48, we should have concluded by saying the clause now stands amended and as part of the Bill.

         Amendment to Clause 48 put and agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, put and agreed to.

         Clause 49 put and agreed to

         On Clause 50:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Chair. My debate relates to the issue of the amendment to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, particularly on Section 12 (6) which mandated the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act to provide reports to Parliament. So, I suggest Section 12 (6) of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act remain as it is without amendment. That is number one.

         Secondly, the same Clause 50 advocates for the repeal of Section 25 of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. Section 25 (1) says, that it is the role of the Auditor General in terms of the Audit Office Act to audit the Sovereign Wealth Fund. However, the amendment that is being proposed to us here by the Minister is to say let us remove the Auditor General from auditing the affairs of Mutapa to allow a private auditor to audit the affairs of Mutapa. I do not agree with that submission Hon. Chairperson. This is because Mutapa Investment Fund, let us be very clear on that one…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. NGULUVHE): Point of order Honourable. They want us to go back to what Clause?

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I think Hon. Mushoriwa jumped to 50 when we were speaking about the Auditor General Auditing. That is when we were still deliberating on the gold Clause. So, we then jumped and the assumption was that it was the audit of the gold accounts and not the Mutapa one. He is right, what we are amending on the Mutapa is to remove the Auditor-General but we jumped clauses, Hon. Mushoriwa confused us.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: No, the Minister was under the impression that we were discussing Clause 47 on gold. So, the one on gold, 48 does not have the Auditor General and does not have audit of accounts.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE):  Mr. Chairman, I propose that we recommit Clause 48. There has been some confusion. What happened is that Hon. Mushoriwa’s document had the whole page missing. So when he was giving a comment about the role of the Auditor, he had jumped on to the next Clause. It looked like those two were together. That is an error in his document.  Let us recommit Clause 48, there is no need to change anything under that subclause regarding the use of the Auditor General.

Clause 48 put and agreed to.

On Clause 50:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Chair. My submission with regards to the proposed amendment to Section 25 of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act is that let us expunge that amendment for the reason that I am going to give. Mr. Chairman, it is important that Parliament must understand what is happening in Mutapa because those are national resources and all national resources must be available to scrutiny. The desire by the Hon. Minister to say, let us remove the Auditor General from auditing the Sovereign Wealth Fund and allow private auditors; to me it defies logic because we have been having a lot of information that is opaque about Mutapa Investment Fund. One of them is that there was a report to the effect that Mutapa’s assets are valued at $16 billion.

If you look a few months back Chair, when the Government was acquiring 35% shareholding from Kuvimba, who is now wholly under Mutapa, the 35% shareholding was equivalent to $1. 6 billion. It means Kuvimba alone, as an entity in Mutapa was supposed to be valued at around USD5 billion. If you look at the valuation of $16 billion which was given few weeks back, it is not consistent with the remaining companies under Mutapa.

Let me give a few examples: NetOne is now under Mutapa, National Railways of Zimbabwe, Air Zimbabwe, COTTCO, ZUPCO – [AN HON. MEMBER:  Inaudible interjections.] –

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Mutseyami, please can the Hon. Member be heard in silence.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  COTTCO, TelOne, ZUPCO, Delford Mine, Silo Investments, National Oil Company of Zimbabwe (NOCZIM), Petrotrade, Cold Storage Company, Peoples Own Savings Bank, ZESA, ZENT, Fidelity Gold Refinery, Home Link, ARDA, Zimbabwe Power Company, Allied Timbers, Telecel, IDC and Hwange Colliery, to mention a few. So if Kuvimba alone was valued at $5 billion or $4. 6 billion, then all these other companies are supposed to be valued at more than the $16 billion that was put to us, although it is not yet formally tabled in Parliament.

For us to say let us now take the responsibility of audit from the Auditor General to a private auditor which we can control is not sustainable Chair.  It creates higher risk of embezzlement of national funds.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Point of order Mr. Chairman. The auditor is not responsible for evaluating the company.  When you speak about the value of the company, let us stick to the core issues in the Bill. The Bill is speaking to, should we remove the auditor but the reason that we are advancing the value of the company is not the function of the Auditor. I am just saying, let us not digress and bring under consideration, because this is the Committee Stage. The rules are that we discuss what is there and not a general discussion. Can you confine to that so  we can understand each other?

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Hon. Minister. You know the reason why I was trying to motivate the House to understand the reason why I am denying the removal of the Auditor General and to put private auditors.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Member, go straight to the point, not to try and motivate.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I am talking about the issue of maintaining the status quo because the intention of the amendment is to recuse the AG from auditing the activities of Mutapa, which is what I am saying cannot be possible because I am now giving flesh of what has happened now, which is creating opaqueness, even into this House to the parliamentarians. To remove the AG worsens the situation Chair. That is why I am motivating that way. 

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Mr. Chairman, I think he is not able to explain himself. These are two distinct issues, an audit and an evaluation and reevaluation. You get somebody to evaluate the value of a company. Also, I think he is running ahead of himself. He is admitting that he does not have a report about the actual value but he is debating assumptions. Let us concentrate and debate about what the proposed amendment is proffering and his argument for keeping the AG not about the value of the company.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Let me be straight forward. I am sure the House is understanding where I am coming from. I am just going direct to the issue but the House understood where I am coming from. The issue is involving private auditors, they are prone to manipulation. I have seen that in many institutions. We want our trusted Auditor General to take charge of this process because the AG has been on record exposing a lot of corruption which is important for Parliament. I therefore recommend that the status quo remains and the appeal is expunged.

HON. JAMES:  Thank you Chair. I fully agree with the Hon. Member that the AG must continue to audit these entities. After all, they are public entities and the AG was the one who audited them before they went to Mutapa Fund. There is no need to remove the AG from the function of auditing these entities in the Mutapa Fund or Sovereign Wealth Fund. I would like to point out also in 25 (b) (2), the fund shall create a policy and system for evaluating compliance with guidelines. Is that not asking a hyena to look after a cub?  Surely there are guidelines for procurement that the Mutapa Fund and Sovereign Wealth Fund should adhere to.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Which one are you referring to?

HON. JAMES:  Section 25 (b), procurement systems of entities (2), the fund shall create a policy and system for evaluating compliance with procurement guidelines. We have a procurement board, so why ask the board or the people within the fund to organise their own procurement and compliance regulations?

HON. MUSHORIWA: If you look at this Clause 50, there are two issues that are there which I think are easy to marry. Under line 6 on page 36, it says the Minister “shall table before Parliament, all reports submitted to him or her by the Fund under Subsection 3, not later than 15 days after they have been received or within 15 days of the first sitting of Parliament. After the Minister received them,  whichever is applicable.’ That one is good but I think it diverts from the standard because 15 days is a bit – I do not know how they come up to with the figure because ordinarily, you want to speak of reports being tabled 30 days after the submission because we know from history that there is always a problem.

If you then go to the Audit of Funds Accounts, on that issue, the accounts of the Fund shall be audited by the Auditor General and then we put a full stop. The rationale being that Mutapa Fund is a public entity and you want it to be under the Auditor General and we know what the Auditor General does – sometimes he does not do the actual auditing but engages other private audit firms to do the audit. My submission is to say, we do small amendments. We replace the 15 days with 30 days. On Audit of the Funds Accounts, we delete and substitute so that sub-clause 1 under 25 will read, ‘the Accounts of the Fund shall be audited by the Auditor General.’ All the other things like sub clause 2 pertaining to the functions and auditor’s reports, I think all those will be covered by the law because the Auditor General audits - the law is clear and he is guided by the Constitution. Some of these things then become of no consequence, so we then delete them. We simply end where we say, “the accounts of the Fund shall be audited by the Auditor General”. If we do that, we have covered everything.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): I thank the Hon. Members for their input and comments, Hon. Mushoriwa, Hon. Madzivanyika and Hon. Lewis. Let me start with the issue of 15 vs 30 days that are raised by Hon. Mushoriwa. I am comfortable with moving to 30 days for consistency, so we will make that amendment from 15 to 30 days. On the issue of substitution, the Auditor General with an auditor of note, we have got auditors like KPMG, EY, et cetera, these are the kind of auditors that we are talking about. These are auditors who are subject to global benchmarking, to global standards, they have reputations to maintain and retain. So I see no difficulty at all in having any of these big three/big four firms being an auditor for Mutapa. After all, this Sovereign Wealth Fund is a corporatised entity that superintends over corporatised sub entities. Some of these sub entities are actually being audited by some of these private auditors. So, there is no inconsistency at all in having these private auditors being auditors of Mutapa.

We also envisage a situation where some of these Mutapa assets will be offloaded on the market for recapitalisation to support Government. Also, we envisage a situation where the assets of Mutapa will be valued - a fair value will be placed upon them that can be defended in the market place, I repeat in the market place. It is even more important to have a marketplace auditor being involved in the audit of Mutapa and we want that because Mutapa may proceed to seek their own credit rating as an entity. I do not think that with the Auditor General as auditor, that will be acceptable to Moody’s, S and P or Fitch or any of those ratings agencies. You need a globally recognised auditor. So, this is very important that we understand where we are going.

I think Hon. Members have a right to come back in another couple of years or three years and say, look maybe having private auditors is not such a good idea but I have tried to outline where we are going with this that we want a world class institution which is reputable, which is subject to the rigour of credit rating agencies.

I now turn to the comments by Hon. Lewis under the section on procurement.  I think that he was referring to that 25 (b) sub (d) and here again, we propose that we do not need section 26, that can be expunged. Once Mutapa is corporatised which it is; surely it would create policies for procurement. So 25 (b) (2) is okay, because Mutapa is a corporatised entity and any corporatised entity working with these boards and the leadership of CEO must have some procurement guidelines, that is normal. What I am saying is that paragraph (d) is not necessary, so we can expunge that. I thank Hon. Lewis for pointing us to that paragraph.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, I just wanted the Hon. Minister to understand something.  When you said the accounts shall be audited by Public Auditors in terms of the Public Accountants and Auditors Act [Chapter 27:12], it does not state what the Hon. Minister is saying that the big 4, the KPMG, that is not what it says. We will not in this august House pass a law that will then side-line audit firms that are owned by Zimbabweans. 

         Basically, the Public Accounts and the Auditors’ Act is the Zimbabwean authority that then appoints various auditors. So, the question of the big four does not arise.  More importantly and fundamentally Hon. Chair, the Auditor General, currently as we are speaking, is actually getting outside auditors to audit Government entities, parastatals. I say this Hon. Chair, we cannot deviate from the norm.  National Railways of Zimbabwe, Air Zimbabwe and all those entities now under Mutapa were being audited by the Auditor General.

         I think let us just have Mutapa, it should be audited by the Auditor General and let us see how things happen because the moment you remove Mutapa from the Auditor General, it then creates a problem.  I want to just add to the Hon. Minister to note something, remember in the last Finance Bill, we deleted Clause 22 which previously Hon. Minister if you recall, did not allow the Sovereign Wealth and Mutapa in this case, to dispose assets and other stuff, we repealed it.  Once we then move away and say we no longer want the Auditor General to be responsible for the auditing, then it actually creates a big problem.  

         I want to agree that Mutapa Fund, if properly managed Hon. Chair, will be a game changer and what we are just advocating is to simply say let the Auditor General have the mandate to audit Mutapa, which audit firm will the Auditor General take? The Auditor General will do it as it is always done.  The moment the Auditor General is allowed by law, it means we will have Mutapa Fund in the Auditor General’s report and the people of Zimbabwe will be in a position to track how far their investment is performing. That is what we want.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: Thank you Hon. Chair, I thank Hon. Mushoriwa for that intervention. In that paragraph, section 1 says accounts of the Fund shall be audited by one or more persons who are registered as public auditors in terms of the Public Accounts and Auditors Act.  This Act is what governs the activities of the Public Accounts and Audit Board (PAAB).  PAAB then regulates the big four accounting firms, I will say big four plus, that is the order of how it works.

         What we are trying to achieve by using a private auditor? We want to get Mutapa to a point where we can acquire an international credit rating with Fitch, Moody’s and SMP and some other.  You cannot do that if the auditor is an Auditor General who is not internationally recognised. We want to get to that stage, otherwise we will not meet our objectives as to why we created Mutapa in the first place.  We want to improve the balance sheet of the Sovereign. At the moment we have a liability, everyone keeps harping about that we owe 21 billion, it has become a song. No one wants to talk about our assets, our assets are Mutapa.  Government should have a balance sheet that will be able to improve this credit standing. 

         In any case, we are moving to IPSAS accounting over the next two to three years.  It is important to have a balance sheet and that will be consistent with IPSAS type accounting, I thank you.

         HON. NYAMURONDA:  Thank you Hon. Chair. My point is, Mutapa Fund is a national asset, so our Auditor General has the responsibility to look after our national assets. We cannot take this responsibility and give it to private or external auditors. In this case we can say let us have the external auditors as internal auditors for Mutapa Fund, but overally, we cannot remove the responsibility of Auditor General because Parliament plays an oversight role over these things.  If we take these things and put them to external auditors, what is going to happen to Parliament oversight?  So, I submit.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: With all due respect Honourable, I think the Hon. Minister has tried to explain the reason why – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – You can explain Leader of the House.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, the Constitution is not prescriptive that even companies where Government has shareholding, it is only the Auditor General who can audit the accounts.  Hwange for instance, the Auditor General is nowhere to be found.  We are creating an entity where we want the board to be accountable for results.  We do not want to perpetuate a system that we are running away from. We want the board to be accountable for whatever they will be doing as if they were a private company but owned by Government.

         We agreed with the Hon. Minister that perhaps all those audit reports and everything, Parliament must have oversight.  We do not want to encumber with the regulations and rules that pertain to a Government Department and then they do not perform.  We want them to appoint their own auditors and exactly what the Hon. Minister indicated, that is the direction that we want to move towards. So, on this one Hon. Chair, let us proceed – [HON. MEMBERS: Objections, divide the House!] -

         Clauses 50 and 51 put and agreed to.

On Clause 52:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I strongly believe that on this issue there is a problem, so let us divide the House.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: But I have overruled you.

HON. MUROMBEDZI: Hon. Chair, we are in this House with the concept note of the budget for 2025, of building resilience for sustained economic transformation for Zimbabwe. This behaviour, we had started well Hon. Chair. Let us just move smoothly, not just to hoodwink. We are made of different views, just accommodate them. We want to make our country great. …

*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members, if you give one another an opportunity to speak, I will understand but if you all speak at once, I will not be able to understand you – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Can you allow her to be heard, otherwise I can quote the clause which gives me the powers. If you want the House to be divided, it can be divided but if I see that there is no need, I do not need to divide the House and it is allowed by law. So, please do not push me too far.

HON. MUROMBEDZI: In the spirit of building a resilient Zimbabwe, let us accommodate all views. With all due respect and Hon. Minister, this process comes once in a year. At least accommodate all views. If you give us time to debate, you also give the other side and then make a ruling which is fair.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I had to move on is because it was only repetition. There were no new ideas being brought and the Minister had already answered.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, I think I made my position clear that on this one, we are not changing. So, in the opinion of the Chair, who can either decide to divide the House if he sees it fit, that is the discretion of the Chair, so your debate does not improve anything because I have already indicated our position. So, let us proceed – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members, you just want to waste time. There is no need to divide the House, it will not change anything – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Can I refer you to Standing Order Number 133 – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I have made my ruling.

Clause 52 put and agreed to.

         Clause 53 put and agreed to. – [HON. ENG. MHANGWA: Hon. Chair, point of order.] -

         Clause 54 put and agreed to – [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Chairperson, no, no, no, this is embarrassing.] -

         Clause 55 put and agreed to. – [HON. MADZIVANYIKA: You can approve all the Clauses as you wish, no need to ask us. Chairperson, I suggest that you stop there, everything has passed.] –

HON. TOGAREPI: Hon. Chair, Hon. C. Hlatywayo must withdraw his statement where he said ‘tiri mbavha’, we do not want that nonsense.  – [HON. ZIYAMBI: Yes, he must withdraw.] – You have to withdraw that statement.  We cannot have you - [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Point of Order.] -

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. C. Hlatywayo, withdraw your statement – [HON. C. HLATYWAYO: I said, ‘munotonga nechitororo’ thus you are a draw back to the progress of the nation. I never said you are thieves.] –

HON. TOGAREPI: Hon. Chair, even what he is saying right now, he must withdraw – [ HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - The rules allow us to put a position and it is at the discretion of the Chair to put the House to order, he must withdraw.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Hlatywayo, that is unparliamentary language, can you withdraw?

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: May he explain to me the meaning of the word ‘chitororo’, may he explain to me how it is not a parliamentary language?

HON. TOGAREPI: Hon. Hlatywayo, if you do not know what ‘chitororo’ means, we will do it to you so that you will know it – [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Aah, what is that? Point of Order Hon. Chair!] –

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Tsvangirai please approach the Chair – [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Is this still a Parliament?] – Hon. Tsvagirai approach the Chair – [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: What is all this? On a point of order, Chairperson, point of Order!] –

Hon. Tsvangirai approached the Chair.

– [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Point of Order, I have a point of order.] – Honourables, the debate is over, what is the point of order? I am waiting to hand over the Bill with amendments, so what is the point of order all about? -– [HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Chairperson, are you going to give us time to speak to our points of order?] –  I said the debate is over -– [HON. G. K.  HLATYWAYO: Chairperson, we have point of orders] – yes, what is your point of order?

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Thank you so much Chairperson.  The Government Chief Whip must retract his words. We do not want to intimidate each other in this House, this is a Parliament.  We do not accept to be intimidated Chairperson -– [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – 

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Chairperson, you had given me the time.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: The debate is over.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Chairperson, but you did not rule on my point of Order. -– [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – 

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon. Members, can we have order in the House? Order Hon. Members!  Order! Order! Can we have order in the House? -– [HON. MAKUMIRE: We are not happy.] – Hon. Makumire, order, order! Hon. Members on my right, Hon. Members on my left, can we have order in the House?

House resumed

Progress reported

Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I move that Orders of the Day, Numbers 2 and 3 be stood over, until Order of the Day Number 4 has been disposed of.

Motion put and agreed to.

COMMITTEE STAGE

Fourth Order read: Committee Stage: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill [H. B. 4, 2023].

         House in Committee.

         Clause 1put and agreed to.

         On Clause 2:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, we put amendments on the Order Paper and they are there. 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  For Civil Aviation?

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Yes.  Check on the Order Paper, they are there and I think we need to be guided by the rules of the House. 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  That is fine Hon. Mushoriwa, it will be corrected.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  On Clause 2, I propose that we delete the definition of civil penalty.  Civil penalties as laid down in the Bill are almost unconstitutional for the following reasons; they can be imposed in addition to civil penalties. The fact that a person has been subjected to civil penalty does not prevent him from being prosecuted for a criminal offence and vis-a-vis.  In my view this amounts to double jeopardy. 

         Hon. Chair, civil penalties are not subject to confirmation by a court of law, so the levying of a civil penalty amounts to an unlawful process.  Thirdly a civil penalty imposed for an offence committed by a corporate body or the directors and officers of a company will be deemed guilty of the offence even if they have not committed a crime and knew nothing about it. Lastly there is no proper appeal against a civil penalty. A court will be able to set penalty aside on procedural grounds.  This definition of civil penalty under Clause 2, I believe that we need to remove it. 

         Having said this Hon. Chair, I wanted to bring to your attention that this Bill the Civil Aviation, came through the Temporal Presidential Powers. The Minister of Transport allowed the expiry to the Temporal Presidential Powers and all of a sudden, the Hon. Minister then creates urgency which is not necessary.   In this regard, I move that the definition of civil penalty under Clause 2 be deleted. 

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, we are rejecting that amendment.  Civil penalties have always been approved in this august House.  Once you are given a civil penalty, it does not bar you to approach the courts if you are grieved.  PLC has always passed these Bill with such a provision for civil penalties. The other issues that he was using to motivate are neither here nor there.  The Bill is before Parliament and I reject the amendments, Hon. Chair.

         HON. JAMES:  I would like to reinforce what my colleague has said.  The concern about this Bill is that it is a reaction to the recommendations of the …

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members on my right, please let the Hon. Member be heard in silence. 

         HON. JAMES:  This whole Bill is a reaction to all that which we were told was going to be done before the end of the year and has not transpired.  I suspect that the Bill has sinister agenda ransacking possibly there is no need to abide by recommendations from the international body…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Member, can you debate on Clause 2. 

         HON. JAMES:  I am concerned that it has passed through the Judicial Section of Parliament because there are a number of issues that circumvent the Constitution and I will recommend that it goes back so that they can look at these areas.  I thank you.

          (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair, the Bill is before Parliament and this is the Committee Stage; let us look at Clause 2 and make comments.  This is not Second Reading Stage where you issue general statements on whether you want the Bill to proceed or not, it is unprocedural.  We are at the Committee Stage, we are at Clause 2, I have indicated that I am not accepting Hon. Mushoriwa’s amendment and move that as is, we pass.  I thank you Chair.

         HON. HAMAUSWA:  I object Hon. Chair. My objection is that as much as we understand that the Minister is not ready to be persuaded to accept the proposal by Hon. Mushoriwa, but the rejection must also give us confidence that the way he is expressing his rejection, we are still within the spirit of working towards a better outcome.  Hon. Chair, if we carryover the emotional issues from Mutapa, they are manifesting in everything that we are doing, I would suggest that maybe we can adjourn and then we come back when we are proper – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible Interjections.] -

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU):  Point of order overruled.

         Amendment to Clause 3 put and agreed to.

         Clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to.

         Hon. Madzivanyika and Hon. Mhangwa, we need to progress.  You are going to allow me to put each clause and if you keep shouting, then you will disturb the process.

         Clause 4 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 5:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  This clause needs correction because it causes to repair Section 12 (2) of the Act.  It should repair Section 12 (1). So, I think it needs to be corrected.

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

         (The Minister having consulted with staff from the Ministry of Finance.)

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  I agree with Hon. Mushoriwa.  It needs to be numbered correctly as he indicated. Thank you.

          Amendment to Clause 5 put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, put and agreed to.

          Clauses 6 and 7 put and agreed to.

          On Clause 8:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair. On Clause 8, between lines 1 on page 4 of the Bill and line 3 on page 6, we intend to delete the whole clause. The reason why the clause needs to be deleted completely is that if you look at the new Sections 24 (c) and 24 (d) which the clause proposes to insert into the Act, it will give the Director General law-making powers. The Hon. Deputy Minister of Transport conceded to this position during the Second Reading. The import is that the Director General will be able to make orders which will be binding for so long as they are in force. That is indefinitely and will be binding on all persons in general.

         Hon. Chair, such powers, even the President who was elected by the generality of the people, does not have those superpowers. The Director General will also be able to make directives and orders that will cover such matters as an interpretation of technical standards, and implementation of the Chicago Convention and Measures. They will not be published in the Gazette but on the Civil Aviation’s official website. It is a good directive that will not have to be published at all. We cannot have a situation where the Director General has so much power.

         Lastly, orders and directives and most specifically statutory instruments as defined in Section 332 of the Constitution. As such, they must be published in the Gazette in terms of Section 134 (e) of the Constitution. Since the Bill does not require them to be published in the Gazette like regulated, technically they will be unconstitutional.

Rather than giving the Director General constitutional powers, Section 79 of the Act should be amended to give the Minister power to make regulations to provide the matters contained in Sections 24 (c) and 24 (d). What I am saying Chair is, let power be retained by the Minister and not by the Director General. This will be the first person in the history of Zimbabwe to have so much power unelected, and unaccountable and I do not think that the Minister intends to have such a Director General with superpowers.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I want to respectfully differ with Hon. Mushoriwa. Parliament is bestowed with law-making powers and is allowed by the Constitution to delegate its law-making powers to anyone and this is what we are doing. The powers are being bestowed on the Director General by Parliament. That is why we put it there so that we bestow them. We are talking about aviation security issues where at certain times for the safety of passengers, a decision has to be made there and then and we cannot play around with the safety of passengers. We need somebody who is in charge to exactly do that. This Clause is one of the most important and progressive in terms of aviation laws that we have put in the Bill. I urge Hon. Mushoriwa to go and study other jurisdictions. He will simply find out that this is exactly the direction that most jurisdictions are taking to ensure that action is taken immediately, through delegated powers, in terms of Section 134 of our Constitution which bestows, Parliament can give delegated authority to make subsidiary laws, just like you do to local authorities. You delegate the Ministers to make subsidiary laws. I want to respectfully request him to agree with me like what they said, I must persuade him nicely in the spirit of ensuring that we improve our aviation laws. 

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I am not sure whether the Leader of the House has actually put his mind into this. I am saying so because the Hon. Minister of Transport saw it and considered the point during the Second Reading. Fundamentally, to respond to the Hon. Minister, yes, Parliament can delegate power and we have always done that to the Minister to make regulations. The regulations, Hon. Chair, whether they are through Statutory Instrument, they are subject to scrutiny by the PLC. If you look at the manner and mechanism we are doing this, these regulations by the Director General will only be on the website. They will not be subjected to scrutiny.

In my respective view Hon. Minister, I think we need to make sure that we amend Section 79 of the Act so that we give the power to the Minister to make regulations and this is the standard. Let the Minister be empowered to make the regulations. If we allow that a Director General can do that, even outside the purview of the Minister, I think it then becomes a problem. We have got the Minister of Transport, let that Minister be crossed with the powers. I will be glad as Parliament, to give the Minister those powers. Once we give the Minister, that will be fine and he/she will do the processes but to give a technical person the power to do that, I think that will be the first. I would also need the Hon. Minister to show me one statute in Zimbabwe where we have done such a thing.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Hon. Mushoriwa wants me to show him a statute, this one, I have just created. This one will do that. Thank you Hon. Mushoriwa for conceding that and agreeing that Parliament can give delegated authority to do this. Hon. Mushoriwa is suggesting why not give it to the Minister? We want somebody on the ground to issue directives in cases of emergency rather than run around and look for a Minister when there is a security situation that is pending. Some of these directives are binding directives that are of security nature, directed to specific individuals and they are on a need to know basis.

You cannot then say that you need all of them to be subjected to ministerial approval when we have somebody whom we have entrusted with authority as Parliament. That is why we have brought it here to give those delegated powers. This one, because of the security nature, I will engage you if you want and show you several Acts where it is like this from other jurisdictions. On this one, I believe that this is progressive. Let us accept it and move forward. I thank you.

HON. JAMES:  Thank you Madam Chair. By giving powers to the Director General, is it not usurping the powers of the Minister?

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  That has already been responded to Hon. James.

HON. JAMES:  I still want to reiterate that …

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  No. The powers have been given by the Act. So, the powers of the Minister are intact. Powers to do this are the only ones that are bestowed on the director general.

Clause 8 put and agreed to.

On Clause 9:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  Chair, I want to move an amendment that between lines 4 and 10, on page 6 of the Bill, that we delete the whole Clause. Madam Chair, Clause 9 will amend Section 42 (2), which currently imposes penalty of a fine of level 7, currently USD400 on the standard scale of fines, prescribed under the Criminal Law Code or imprisonment for one year for flying in or out of Zimbabwe without permission. This Clause Madam Chair, will change the penalty to a fine of level 5, which will be USD200 thousand on the new scale set out in the Bill or five years. I want to state that this Madam Chair is ridiculously high penalty. Section 42 (2) should be left as it is and the Clause should be deleted from the Bill.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):   Thank you Chair. I am proposing that we keep it as it is. This is the maximum. Our judiciary is always giving a discretion of up to a certain level. There is judicial discretion depending on the fact but up to a maximum of USD200 thousand. You remember, we said this is a security issue. We want the maximum fine to be as deterrent as possible but the judiciary has discretion depending on the facts that have been presented to the judicial officer. I agree that we must leave it as it is. In any event if you are just a law-abiding citizen like Hon. Mushoriwa, you do not have anything to fear about this maximum level of fine. Therefore, I think Hon. Mushoriwa is now agreeable Chair. Let us proceed.

HON. MUSHORIWA: I am not so sure why the Hon.  Minister wants to maintain these arguments. I want to put to you Hon. Minister, the Commissioner General of Police, the Director General of State Security, the Generals in the Zimbabwe Defence Forces do not seem to have the powers and even the fines – I am not so sure why Hon. Minister you think that the Director General of the Civil Aviation becomes so much of a security risk compared to all other areas. Why should it be so high? Is it because we are talking of aeroplanes only? I think there should be a balance in my view.

 HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Madam Chair, Hon. Mushoriwa is asking a question and answering himself. This is aviation industry, it is different from conventional warfare where we have regulations for our military personnel where we have regulations for those that are entrusted with law enforcement on a day to day basis, our police officers. I think exactly that point that he is saying that the Director General of Civil Aviation, we have a standard of scale fines for Civil Aviation to ensure that we deter and like he said, I do not believe that Hon. Mushoriwa is planning some mischief. This law does not exist for you, it exists for those that want to do what we want to deter. I so submit.

Clause 9 put and agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13 put and agreed to.

On Clause 14:

HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, on the risk of continuously making the same view, I just wanted to say that my amendment on Clause 14 on lines 34, 39 on page 7 sought to delete the clause, the reason being that section 49 (12) is in my view too ridiculous and I  think it has to be deleted.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I am not sure what ridiculous means, so I propose that we keep it because the definition of ridiculous has not been availed to me. So, let us proceed.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I thought the Hon. Minister is not aware of the meaning of ridiculous, he must seek the meanings of Hon. Mushoriwa before he makes his judgment.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Madzivanyika, Hon. Mushoriwa is laughing, meaning he is in agreement.

Clause 14 put and agreed to.

On Clause 15:

HON. MUSHORIWA: In this clause in page 7, I wish to have an amendment which seeks to insert after the words ‘ensure that then you put off until completion of the investigation concerned’. What the proposed amendment will do is to just ensure information obtained during an investigation can be disclosed after the investigation having been completed. We are not talking of interfering with investigations but we are basically saying after the investigation has been completed then information can be disclosed. I thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I just want Hon. Mushoriwa to explain why he needs that amendment?

HON. MUSHORIWA:  Hon. Chair, part of the reason whenever there is an investigation, lets say there is a plane that has crushed in Zimbabwe, the investigation has to happen and what my amendment seeks is not to interfere with the investigation. The intention is to say after the investigation has been completed, surely that report needs to be made public and I think that is what we seek to do in this clause.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. Where Hon. Mushoriwa is seeking to insert the clause, that is not the purpose of this particular clause which is here, so perhaps if you can find a home for what he wants and not disturb this one. This one has a specific purpose to ensure that when an investigator is obligated, when he has collected information including from cockpit voice recording, shall on its mere production in a civil or criminal proceeding by any person be prima facie proof of the service of the order, so we cannot then join in what he is saying. This is completely a different section. I think if he can apply his mind and find somewhere then we can consider whether it is appropriate in that particular section, I submit. 

HON. MUSHORIWA: No Chair, I am not so sure whether the Hon. Minister has read the same. It says an investigator shall ensure that information collected within the course of investigation including information called from the cockpit voice recorder and air bone image recording shall not be disclosed or made available to any other person other than in connection with an investigation carried out under this part. I think the public need to know the outcome of an investigation and I think it is the standard all over.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, I am currently inviting Hon. Mushoriwa to repeat so that I can respond using a fresh mind.

HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair, what I am asking the Hon. Minister is to simply say that we want to ensure that after an investigation has been done, that is information can actually be disclosed after the investigation has been completed.  You will note Hon. Minister, we have had cases and we have been fortunate as Zimbabwe; we have not had many of these cases, but have had cases in other countries where an accident happens, investigations are done and for the safety concerns of the members of the public, you will definitely need to make sure that the investigations report is disclosed. 

May be not necessarily the whole document there should be a report that is disclosed to the public to just make sure that their safety concerns are guaranteed.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, I agree I was trying to see if it is not there because I thought it is there.  I agree and propose that at the end of this Clause, we say we put this provision and say “provided that the final report of an investigation must first be submitted to the Hon. Minister who is then required to publish the final report.  I prosed that amendment.

HON. JAMES: Can we insert the time limit on releasing that report once the Hon. Minister has received it?  It will help for closure people that might be involved in the investigation.    

 HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you, in addition within 30 days.

HON. JAMES: Can we not reduce the 30 days? It could well be people wanting closure on these issues, can we say a week? Thirty days is quite a long time there could been people wanting closure on investigation.  I am just asking if the 30 days can be reduced.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, they are processes that need to be done. The Hon. Minister is not the ultimate authority, he might need to meet with the people, will appreciate it and present it may be to Cabinet or to the President.  So, I think 30 days is fairly reasonable and realistic.

Amendments to Clause 15 put and agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: My amendment to clause 16 seeks to delete the clause and substitute with the ones that I have circulated. Basically, Section 59, were just the penalties for obstructing an inspector to those provided for in Section 178 of the Criminal Law Code which deals with obstructing public officials. So, the penalties provided for in Section 59 contained in this Bill are high. The replacement section will also remove reference to civil penalties. So it will read, instead of saying ‘Obstruction of investigators’ it will say “59 Obstruction of an investigator; Any person who, without lawful excuse, hinders or obstructs an investigator in the exercise of his or her functions shall be guilty of an offence and (a) where the obstruction involves physical interference, force or violence, the person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level five or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or both such fine and such imprisonment; (b) where the obstruction does not involve physical interference, force or violence, the person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level four or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.”.  

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENT AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, this amendment has been superseded. The mere fact that we agreed to the other one means we cannot delete this. Hon. Mushoriwa is now trying to bring his amendment through the back door. This one is an after effect. We can no longer do it.

         Clause 16 put and agreed to.

         Clause 17 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 18:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I move that between lines 38 and 42 on page 8 of the Bill, to delete the clause. I know the Hon. Minister will come and say he has said but I think for posterity, let me just emphasise that the new penalties introducing this clause are inappropriate and the clause should be deleted.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENT AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Mushoriwa has conceded that we must proceed because he knows that is what we have agreed already that, we will stick to the schedule of fines for Civil Aviation and not divert to the other one. We are in agreement with Hon. Mushoriwa to proceed. I thank you.

         Clause 18 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 19:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment in my name that between lines 38 and 42 on page 8 of the Bill, to delete the clause. Why delete? The effect of the new subsection 5 which the clause will insert in Section 67 of the Act is to make aerodrome authorities who fail to comply with the section liable to civil penalty. Now, the Minister and the Civil Aviation Authority are both aerodrome authorities as defined in Section 60 of the Act. I am not so sure whether it is the intention to then say that they are also going to have civil penalties imposed on them. I do not think that could be the intention to do that because Section 67, definition of aerodrome authorities puts the Minister and Civil Aviation Authority and I do not think we could then have a law that seeks to impose civil penalties on them. I do not know but I do not think the reading will be correct.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Mushoriwa is mixing up. There was an amendment that was done when he was in this august House in 2018. Now, the Airports Company is now the aerodrome operator, not Civil Aviation. Civil Aviation is now the regulator. So, it clearly separates them. Having said that, you can now re-read what you are saying and you will see that what is there will actually make a lot of sense. So I move Hon. Chair that we leave it like this and we proceed.

Clause 19 put and agreed to.

On Clause 20:

HON. MUSHORIWA: For posterity sake, the amendment sought in lines 44 and 45 on page 8 of the Bill, to delete the clause and to substitute: “Section 68 (“Offences at aerodromes”) is amended by the deletion of “two level five” and the substitution of “level five”.

Amendment to Clause 20 put and negatived.

Clause 20 put and agreed to.

On Clause 21:

HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment that between lines 5 and 14 on page 9 of the Bill, to delete the new subsection (1) of section 69A and to substitute: “(1) A safety or security oversight inspector designated as an authorised officer shall have the same powers of entry, search and seizure as are conferred on police officers by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].”.  The new section 69A contained in this clause will give inspectors unlimited powers of search, entry and seizure which go far beyond the very extensive power given to police officers by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The powers set out in the new section violate the rights of private and protection of property guaranteed by sections 57 and 71 of the Constitution since they are not fair, reasonable, necessary or justifiable in a democratic society and are far wider than are necessary to achieve their purpose. The clause therefore needs to be amended to give inspectors the same powers as police officers and that is what the proposed amendments seek to do.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Mushoriwa is now tired and is no longer, this is an aircraft. Even at a police roadblock, police officers search, enter vehicles and search vehicles. I do not know why he is making reference to this. This is an aircraft where the risks are higher and these powers are very much necessary more than those given to a police officer at a roadblock who can stop you and search your vehicle. I propose that we proceed as it is.

Clause 21 put and negative.

Clause 21 put and agreed to.

On Clause 22:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I move the amendment standing in my name that; between lines 32 and 34 on page 14 of the Bill, to delete the opening words of subclause (1) and to substitute: “(1) The State, the Commission and all relevant institutions and agencies of Government at every level shall endeavour to ensure that all persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, have a right to—”.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  We object to the amendment Hon. Chair. We agreed that to leave it as it is.

Amendment to Clause 22 put and negatived.

Clause 22 put and agreed to.

On Clause 23:

HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment standing in my name that;

  Between lines 16 and 24 on page 15 of the Bill, to delete subclauses (5) and (6) and to substitute the following: “(5) to— All persons with disabilities are entitled, on an equal basis with others, (a) own and inherit property; and (b) control their financial affairs; and (c) have equal access to loans, mortgages and other forms of credit from financial institutions; to the extent they are intellectually capable of doing so. (6) The State, the Commission and all relevant institutions and agencies of Government at every level, shall ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy their rights under this section.”

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, I reject the amendment in Hon. Mushoriwa’s name.

Amendment to Clause 23 put and negatived.

Clause 23 put and agreed to.

On Clause 24:

HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment standing in my name that:

 Between lines 29 and 31 on page 15 of the Bill, to delete the opening words of subclause (1) and to substitute: “(1) The State, the Commission and all institutions and agencies of Government at every level shall take all necessary steps to ensure that—”.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, we have already dealt with this, I propose that we proceed as is. Hon. Mushoriwa is in agreement because we have dealt with it.

         Amendment to Clause 24 put and negatived.

Clause 24 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 25:            

HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment standing in my name that;

Between line 46 on page 16 of the Bill and line 2 on page 17, to delete subclause (2) and to substitute: “(2) The State, the Commission and all institutions and agencies of government at every level shall take all necessary steps to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the rights specified in subsection (1).”

Hon. Chair, this clause will amend section 79 of the Act, the section giving the Hon. Minister power to use his discretion. Closing this Bill is inadequate, it makes no mention of the Regulations Development Committee which will be established by Clause 26 of the Bill.  It needs to be expanded to allow regulations to be made in order to give effect to decisions and communication of the International Civil Aviation Agency Organisation mentioned in Clause 8.  I therefore seek the amendments that I have proposed Hon. Chair.

         THE TEMPORARYCHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, as the Hon. Minister is making consultations. 

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): This amendment, the way it is in the Bill is correct.  If Hon. Mushoriwa can refer to the actual Act where it is amending, you will find out that where we are inserting it, it reads very well, so there is no need to worry Hon. Mushoriwa.  I have checked just to be sure. I move that we keep it as it is.

         Amendment to Clause 25 put and negatived.

Clause 25 put and agreed to.

Clause 26 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 27:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I move the amendment standing in my name that;

         In lines 21 and 22 on page 17 of the Bill, to delete the opening words of subclause (1) and to substitute: “(1) The State, the Commission and all institutions and agencies of government at every level shall take all necessary steps to ensure that—”.

This one is a minor amendment.  Apparently, Hon. Chair, there are several organisations representing stakeholders in the civil aviation industry. 

         So, what this clause simply does is to replace the word ‘an organisation’ and substitute with ‘the organisations’.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Agreed to. I propose that we adopt that amendment in Hon. Mushoriwa’s name.

         Amendment to Clause 27 put and agreed to

         Clause 27, as amended, put and agreed to.

         Clause 28 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 29:

         THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT (HON. SACCO): Thank you Madam Chair.  I would like to propose an amendment in my name to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill; on Clause 29 line 20 to line 42.  I would like to amend on line 22 where it says, ’70 per centum’ and replace that with 67.5%. 

         I would like to propose an amendment on line 30 where it says ’30 per centum’ to replace that with 32.5%.  Further amendment on line 35, where it reads 30 per centum and replace that with 32.5%.  I would like to also propose an amendment that we delete sub section (2) from line 37 to line 42.  I so submit. 

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Actually, I want to debate Hon. Chair.  The Hon. Minister, I think he should motivate his amendment by explaining to this august House why he seeks to have that sharing ratio changed and what has actually motivated that. 

         HON. SACCO:  Thank you Madam Chair. This proposal was derived from negotiations that were undertaken between the Airports Company of Zimbabwe and Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe which I think Hon. Mushoriwa understands. There used to be one institution which were then separated to allow CAAZ to be the regulator and therefore, be an independent board.  CAAZ being the regulator did not have access to adequate revenue to carry out its mandate. In the interest of reducing pressure on fiscus, we believe that the Airports Company of Zimbabwe can give 32.5% of its revenue to the Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe to allow it to carry out its mandate.  This is an increase from 305 to 32.5%, so it is a minimal increase but already negotiations have been done with the Ministry and Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe and ACZ.  Both parties have agreed to this new sharing ratio.  As a trade-off, the land that was leased by Government to CAAZ which now fall under Airports Company, that is part of the trade-off and I think that is enough justification that we do not want to put too much pressure on the fiscus for it to keep on funding CAAZ whilst we have other demands on our budget.  Therefore, we believe that CAAZ can be funded from the revenue that is being realised in our efforts.  I so submit. 

         HON. JAMES:  Madam Chair, can I ask the Hon. Deputy Minister, the fines that we read today, are they paid into the fiscus? Do I go to CAAZ or do I go to Airports Company?

         HON. SACCO:  Hon. Chair, once you have passed that particular Clause, you cannot then discuss something, so we are discussing this particular Clause.  It is unlike when we are at the Second Reading Stage then we can throw in everything, Rules of procedure dictate that.  Maybe you can park that question, when it is question time you can ask that to the Minister but now, we are passing that, I cannot go back and reintroduce that. I thank you.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Hon. Minister, I think you missed the point.  We are talking about the increase in terms of the sharing, part of the Hon. Member’s question, we want to find out who gets the fines?  If the fines go to the CAAZ and yet we need a review upwards to 32.5, surely we want to find out who gets the fines.  If the fines go to the CAAZ and yet we need a review upwards to 32.5, surely they also have got other avenues of raising money, we wanted to find out, given what the Hon. Deputy Minister has said that we do not want to put pressure on the fiscus, that is where his point was coming from.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, I am still correct. This is revenue that is accrued in terms of landing fees and other fees, this are not fines, so I believe that the appropriate time when that was supposed to be asked is then - Hon. Mushoriwa is very clever, he wants to bring it through improper ways. You can park it and ask next time.  We have passed that, I submit Hon. Chair. 

Amendment to Clause 29 put and agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I move the amendment standing in my name that between lines 1 on page 16 of the Bill and line 4 on page 25, to delete the new Third Schedule.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, I reject Hon. Mushoriwa’s amendment with his concurrence.

Amendment to Clause 30 put and negatived.

Clause 30 put and agreed to.

On Clause 31:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I move the amendment standing in my name that between lines 6 and 18 on page 25 of the Bill, to delete the Clause.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  I propose that we ignore Hon Mushoriwa’s amendment because we have already dealt with it like I said.

Amendment to Clause 31 put and negatived.

Clause 31 put and agreed to.

 On Clause 32:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I move the amendments standing in my name that between lines 19 and 21 on page 25 of the Bill, to delete the Clause.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I reject the amendments Hon. Chair.

 Amendment to Clause 32 put and negatived.

Clause 32 put and agreed to.

 Clauses33 and 34 put and agreed to. 

On Schedule:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I move the amendment in my name that between line 4 on page 26 of the Bill and the last line of the Bill, to delete the Schedule.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I reject the amendment by Hon. Mushoriwa.

Amendment to Schedule put and negatived.

Schedule put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

         Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  I have received a Non-Adverse Report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill [H. B. 12A, 2024.].

CONSIDERATION STAGE

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL [H. B. 12A, 2024.]

Amendments to Clauses 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 28, 29, 40, 43, 44 and 50 put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third Reading: With leave, forthwith.

THIRD READING

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL [H. B. 12A, 2024.]

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker Ma’am, I move that the Bill be read the third time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the third time.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

         THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  I have received a Non-Adverse Report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Appropriation (2025) Bill [H. B. 11, 2024.]

Second Reading: With leave, forthwith.

SECOND READING

APPROPRIATION (2025) BILL [H. B. 11, 2024.]

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Madam Speaker.  Firstly, I would like to thank the Hon. Members for the robust debate that we had in the Committee of Supply when we dealt with the Appropriation Bill.  The Bill before us seeks to provide for appropriation for various ministries, agencies and departments.  Therefore, I move that the Bill be now read a second time.  Thank you.

         Motion put and agreed to.

         Bill read a second time.

         THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  In terms of Standing Order Number 125 (89), the Bill shall not be committed to a Committee of the whole House and the motion of the Third Reading shall be decided without amendments or debate.

THIRD READING

APPROPRIATION (2025) BILL [H. B. 11, 2024.]

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker Ma’am, I move that the Bill be now read the third time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the third time.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker, I move that Order of the Day, Number 5 be stood over until Order of the Day, Number 6 has been disposed of.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE ZIMBABWE GENDER COMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 2023

THE MINISTER OF WOMEN AFFAIRS, COMMUNITY, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT (HON. SEN. MUTSVANGWA): Madam Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name that this House takes note of the Report of the Zimbabwe Gender Commission for the period 2023, presented to the National Assembly in terms of Section 323 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker, I move that debate do now adjourn.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Thursday, 19^th December, 2024.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER

ERROR ON THE ORDER PAPER

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Hon. Members, may you take note that there is a numbering error on the Order Paper. The number 6 we disposed of was supposed to be number 7, so we are going to the actual number 6.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker, I move that we revert to Order of the Day, Number 6.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

APPROVAL FOR RATIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE AND THE RUSSIA FEDERATION

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Speaker, I move that:

WHEREAS Section 327 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that any convention, treaty or agreement acceded to, concluded or executed by or under the authority of the President with one or more foreign States or Governments or international organisations shall be subject to approval by Parliament;

WHEREAS the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs of the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Justice for the Russian Federation signed an Agreement on Cooperation on the 28^th of June, 2024 at the Saint Petersburg International Legal Forum held in Saint Petersburg Russia.

WHEREAS, the Republic of Zimbabwe is desirous of ratifying the aforesaid Agreement;

AND WHEREAS, in terms of Article 12 of the Agreement, the entry into force of the aforesaid agreement shall be on the date of signature or if not signed simultaneously, on the date of last signature after all constitutional and internal processes have been completed;

NOW THEREFORE, in terms of Section 327 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, this House resolves that the aforesaid Agreement be and is hereby approved for ratification.

Motion put and agreed to.

Some Hon. Members having stood up

         THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, may we take our seats. 

MOTION

APPROVAL FOR RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON CYBER SECURITY AND PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion—

THAT WHEREAS subsection (2) of section 327 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that any Convention, Treaty or Agreement acceded to, concluded or executed by or under the authority of the President with one or more foreign states or governments or international organisations shall be subject to approval by the House of Senate;

WHEREAS the African Member States adopted the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection in June 2014 for the protection of society against cyber-crime especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering cross border co-operation;

AND WHEREAS the terms of the Convention requires that all Member Countries ratify the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection;

NOW, THEREFORE, in terms of subsection (2) of section 327 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, this House resolves that the aforesaid convention be and is hereby approved for ratification.

Motion put and agreed to.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

THE HON. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received a Non-Adverse Report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill [H. B. 4A: 2023].

CONSIDERATION STAGE

CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 4A: 2023]

         Clauses 5, 15, 27 and 29 put and agreed to.

Bill as amended adopted.

Third Reading: With leave, forthwith.

THIRD READING

CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 4A, 2023]

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT (HON. SACCO): Madam Speaker, I now move that the Bill be read the third time.

         Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the third time.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Members for the dedication and commitment to serve our country that has been shown over the last two weeks. This morning we adjourned and resumed at 1415 hours and my watch is telling me that it is almost 1930 hours. Members have dedicated their time to robust debate to ensure that we improve our legislation. I want to commend all the Hon. Members for the effort that we have put.

Having said that Madam Speaker, I want to wish all the Hon. Members a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2025. I hope that we will all stay safe, enjoy the holidays with our families.

On the motion of THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI), the House adjourned at Twenty-Eight Minutes past Seven o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 11^th February, 2025.