• Version
• Download 0
• File Size 371.79 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date September 20, 2024
• Last Updated March 12, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2024 VOL 50 NO 86

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Friday, 20^th September, 2024

The National Assembly met at Half past Nine o’clock a.m.

PRAYERS

(THE ACTING SPEAKER in the Chair)

COMMITTEE STAGE

FINANCE (2024) BILL [H. B. 8, 2024]

         First Order read:  Resumption of Committee Stage: Finance (2024) Bill [H. B. 8, 2024].

         House in Committee.

         Clause 14 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 15:

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Chair, in respect to this clause, can the Minister clarify in layman’s language what he really intends to do under that clause before we go deeper into the debate?

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE):  Thank you Madam Chair.  You recall colleagues that, through you Madam Chair, we removed special economic zone status for the mining sector.  It used to exist and there are a few mines that have benefited or used to benefit from that.  We took that away.  The special economic zone status is now reserved only for beneficiation activities as well as basically manufacturing because we took that privilege away.  We thought that let us retain the VAT deferment so that we do not completely shut out the sector from any form of incentive whatsoever.  So, we retained and our assessment is that it has had a positive effect in terms of investment in the sector, just initial investment.

I think the issue of environmental damage is something else. Whether you give them a company VAT deferment or not, they will still do environmental damage, I tell you, they do not care about it.  I think it is a different matter.  It is a matter of enforcement through EMA and through the Ministry of Mines.  Those two entities should really enforce the law in terms of environmental damage that the environment should be repaired and also enforcement of our 1% levy that we have introduced in the mining sector. This implies that 1% of the revenue should go towards supporting the local communities in which the minerals are found.  I am happy to report that we have collected resources around that 1% levy which ought to be ploughed back to build schools, drill boreholes, fix roads and so forth.

So, we still feel that the VAT deferment is something that has been beneficial to the industry.  I do not think we should take it away, we have already taken away the special economic zone status.  Let us wait and then assess, but let us enforce the environmental aspects through the Ministry of Mines and EMA.  I thank you.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Madam Chair, I really appreciate the idea of including ZIMRA to authorise the issue of deferment of tax to a maximum period of one hundred and eighty days.  It is important because previously, the Ministry would issue that letter of authorisation for deferment without consulting ZIMRA.  So, the implication was that a company which used to have outstanding VAT deferment balances will still benefit.  This is a good move, but then I wish to move on to the fact that the Minister is still allowed to prescribe VAT deferment to any term that he so wishes.  I think that is dangerous in the sense that we are going to see such big companies which will be allowed to defer VAT for maybe two or three years and normally because of continuous changes in our currencies, they will pay that money whilst it is useless.

So, I therefore propose that proviso to 15 (1) (b) be amended to the fact that the Minister can prescribe VAT deferment to a maximum period of 360 days.  I submit.  

HON. HWENDE:  Thank you very much Madam Chair.  I want to deal with 15 (1) (a) where it says that where any person in favour of whom deferment of tax has been authorised in terms of subsection 1, fails to pay the deferred tax by the date which the Commissioner fixes in terms of sub-section 1, as the date on which payment of the deferred tax is due, that person shall not be permitted to benefit from any future deferment under subsection 1’. 

I wanted to suggest that because the economy also is not performing very well, so to guard against punishing genuine people that defer.  I want to suggest that maybe we give the discretion to the Commissioner to then treat those issues on a case by case basis for those people that would have failed to pay within the prescribed time so that we do not just put a blanket banner for them benefiting from future deferments so that at least the Commissioner General can then look at each case.  They can apply to the Commissioner General then she looks at each case on a case by case basis.  Thank you.

HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  Thank you very much.  My experience in this job when it comes to taxes and Bills and so forth is that the Commissioner General also needs cover because you are putting him under so much pressure, lobbying from all angles on different things.  So, you always need the cover from the Minister, those are the facts.  That is why sometimes you find there are these clauses that allow the Minister to do this.  It is all to make sure that the Minister can support the Commissioner because tax issues are not very easy and also the moment you say Commissioner can have discretion and so on, that can also create difficulties in implementation of the tax law.  Tax law is easier to apply if it is very clear and very strict, maybe for a Commissioner it is easier to implement.

Then maybe you can put a clause to say that individuals can appeal, companies can appeal. It happens all the time and then the Minister can accommodate some of those appeals, we do not want the Commissioner to be  open to excessive lobbying because it says in the law, you have discretion and someone says, ‘but the law is clear as it says they have discretion, so why is that discretion not applying in my favour’.  I have heard these cases before Madam Chair.  So really, I implore colleagues to say it is not very easy being a Commissioner in ZIMRA and I really feel sometimes he is put under a lot of pressure.  So, some of this strict language is warranted so that it is easier to apply the law. 

Then on (b), perhaps there is a feeling that maybe the period of two to three years should be reduced to one year.  With our experience as well, this is coming from an experience that there are companies which commit quite a bit of resources in terms of investments and they are looking for incentives. Some of these are actually just incentives and we do not feel that we lose a lot. Not a lot of cases are in this category, but for one or two companies that need it badly, it is a positive thing and I do not think we stand to lose too much with these deferments to three years. I really feel that we should support them.

If we are losing money, I do not think anyone can say that I am a weak tax collector. I am actually a very tough tax collector and that is why we are arguing about it here. If we are losing money, I will be the first to come back and say I am losing money, let us reduce it to one year. I really want to implore colleagues to work with us because often when I come here, we will have asked our teams to do some very deep technical analysis, but I do appreciate the counsel from Hon. Members and feel that they should support us on this one. Let us make progress, however we will come back if we feel we are losing revenue. I thank you.

HON. HWENDE: On 15 (1) (a), I am happy to go with the Minister’s suggestion that possibly we can then allow those companies to appeal to the Minister so that the discretion lies with the Minister instead of the Commissioner General.

[Phone ringing]

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU): The Hon. Member with a phone ringing in this House, I cannot identify you from here, but please let us ensure that our mobile phones are on silent so that we do not disturb procedures.

HON. MUSHORIWA: Minister, I hear you when you say this is actually an incentive but look Hon. Minister, these capital projects when we say they are capital, we are saying probably someone is spending $4 million to purchase those products from outside the country for the purpose of capital projects in Zimbabwe. We appreciate the investment and need to incentivise, if we defer VAT assuming that it is a capital project of US$4 or $1 million, a capital project of $1 million on importation is supposed to pay VAT on importation of 15%. How much is that? It is around US$150 000. If we defer that payment to after two years, we are saying we are going to receive the VAT in 2026 or 2025. We are in 2024 right now, if someone imports and then we defer the 15% which is 150 000, it means we are going to get the income in 2026.  Look Hon. Minister, a lot of dynamics should have changed.  Number one, what about if we have got a challenge on our currencies because this VAT normally is also payable in local currency as much as I know.  So, you will realise that as we get that far, we will not realise what we actually wanted.

         Number two, how are we going to support our locals or day to day recurrent expenditure looking at the fact that we are going for a hairdresser and say, can you pay five dollars presumptive tax yet we have got these big people or companies we can actually ask to a maximum period of one year so that we quickly get income for our recurrent expenditure.  I kindly submit that if you can allow that reduction, it will assist for our liquidity.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: I really appreciate this debate.  If I can ask my colleague, Hon. Madzivanyika; if you look at that one, you will see that we are saying that the Minister may, considering the quantum of the investment.  This really means large capital investments, the gestation period prior to commencement of sale of products thereof.  This is now the first time that the project is able to produce cashflows.  We take those into account.  If it will take four years for a project to start releasing cashflows, it means an investor is earning nothing in-between.  That is investing and waiting.  It is often the case in these large projects that it takes a while for cashflows to start coming through.  If you are asking for VAT, then we are just squeezing the business.  There are not many of these projects, I do not think we lose much by just returning this incentive because we fail to ask them to pay these VAT given the quantum of the investment and the delayed cashflows.  We are really squeezing the investment.  We are not incentivising at all. I wish if I could have his indulgence Madam Chair.

         Hon. Hwende having been having a tete-a-tete with the Hon. Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Order Hon. Hwende.  You can take the floor if you want to contribute.  You cannot communicate directly with the Minister.

*HON. HWENDE:  He forgot to respond to my submission.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: If you go back, in fact part of 2016, we used to have a rebate for both duty and VAT on equipment that is imported so that we come a long way.  Now, we are saying it has no rebate but we are just deferring.  So, we are actually in a far better position and investors are not complaining.  They are actually happy with this policy that we have moved away from the old policy where there was full rebate and then we lose everything completely.  So, we have made some progress since 2016. 

         HON. HWENDE: On 15.1 (a), maybe you were not listening Hon. Minister, what I had suggested is that I am willing to go with your submission because you had said that we cannot give discretion to the Commissioner General but you can consider those companies to appeal directly to you so that the discretion for those that fail to pay can still appeal to you and then you exercise that discretion under 15.1 (a).  I am supporting and going along with your submission that let us take the discretion from the Commissioner-General.  Those few companies can then appeal to the Minister and then the Minister can treat each case on a case to case basis. 

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: I thought he was saying I need to say more on 1 (b).  Let me go to 1 (a).  Actually, at the moment, there is already the provision in the Act for anyone to appeal to the Minister.  That is already covered. I agree with you but it is already covered.  I do not think it is necessary to really add to the clause.  It is already covered in the law.  You can always appeal to the Minister – [HON. HWENDE: Inaudible interjection.] –   I will have to check from the experts….

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Order. Can we have order in the House?  Hon. Members and the Minister, you need to speak through the Chair so that we do not have the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister exchanging words. 

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  I just want to understand from the Minister.  What are the motivations of protecting these big businesses because I am failing to understand why we want to exempt them from VAT or to defer VAT.  What exactly is the motivation because I would have thought if we are looking for domestic mobilisation of resources, we are supposed to go after big businesses rather than going for people who do not have money?  The debate that we were having yesterday, what are exactly the motivations because these are the people that can pay? 

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I think to further motivate the Hon. Member’s point, under normal circumstances, these big businesses are allowed at law according to the Income Tax Act, to declare a loss for a maximum period of six years without payment of taxes and with a host of capital initial allowances.  They import high capital equipment spending one million, we defer VAT, and we also defer income tax for the next period of six years.  What are we then benefiting as a nation?  I think it is a serious cause for concern.  We need to maintain a balance.  Yes, we understand that they are not generating cashflows in the early stages but we are allowing them for income tax purposes.  Why are we allowing them again on VAT?  That is my suggestion. 

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: What we are doing is, we are allowing them for both the outlay on the equipment, the cost of the equipment that they brought into the country.  In other words, for the investment, that is why the VAT deferment is trying to entice that we want that investment to be done through the acquisition of the equipment for the investment and the business.  The loss for which then they do not have to pay income tax during the first three years when the cashflows are still weak - that is an operational issue.  You are not paying taxes because you are not making any money.  That is normal.  It is a benefit because operationally, you are not making any money.  Those are two different things.  Anyone making a loss would not pay income tax.  So, the absence of income tax for a company that is making a loss applies to all companies, not necessarily big investors but this one is really targeting that much-needed big investment in whatever sector we are talking about. 

         I want to implore members to be supportive of this investment incentive.  It is an incentive.  We are trying to drive foreign direct investment.  That is what we are trying to do.  As I said that this is an investment incentive, it is not saying that big businesses should not pay any taxes.  I understood what the Hon. Member is saying that why  are these big guys not being allowed – it is them who should be paying not the small businesses or individuals. 

         Again, I want to argue that it is just an incentive to get serious investment into various sectors of our economy and it is working.  That is the feedback we are getting as we do our rounds that this is a much-needed incentive.  If I can add Madam Chair, we have other incentives.  For instance, through ZIDA, we have the incentives under the public-private partnerships where we say investors in the sector should not pay any corporate tax for the first five years under especially economic zones.  We also have other incentives which say again the first five years and should not pay any corporate tax because especially economic zone, you are beneficiating, creating jobs.  So as an economy, we are benefiting from the jobs that they are creating.  The same applies to this one.  These are just a bouquet of incentives that we use to drive foreign direct investment and I hope my colleagues can find very good reasons to support it.  Thank you.  

         Clause 15 put and agreed to.   

On Clause 16:

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Chairperson, I am at a loss of words to understand what the Minister really wants to do. We, as a country, have said that we need to make sure we enhance beneficiation and here is the Minister telling us now that the collection of tax on exportation of unbeneficiated platinum is then suspended from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024. I do not think this Parliament should allow such a proviso to pass.

         The Hon. Minister will know that we have actually had a problem and I can actually remind the Hon. Minister as far back as your maiden Finance Bill, you will recall that we spoke about the beneficiation of platinum and you had actually said during that time, you had given them up to 2021. You pushed again to 2022 and here you are now saying let it go up to 31 December, 2024. We know and we have always said that the platinum carries with it a lot of other minerals and as a nation, we are not benefiting. So, to me I think we need to make sure that this tax actually remains there. They should pay and I also do not understand why we should want to push it back to 1 January, 2023. We need as much revenue as possible and I think platinum is one resource that we cannot just allow people to continue to export raw minerals without beneficiation.

         Last time we were told the Bindura Nickel Mine could probably try to do the processing, they refused. They promised to come up with a processing plant. For the past 10 years, they have done nothing. So, I do not understand why we should continue to tolerate them. I think this clause, to me is actually dangerous, it is not good for our economy and we should resist it and ask the Hon. Minister to make sure that this Clause 16 is removed. I thank you.  

         HON. BAJILA: Thank you so much Madam Chairperson, this is very worrisome because we have agreed that a person who owns a lorry in Mabvuku is going to be taxed for the use of that lorry. Here we are today discussing whether somebody should export platinum out of Zimbabwe without paying tax. This is exactly what the proposal says that these minerals must be exported and there must be tax exemption for that. We need to do value addition locally, so, if it is not beneficiated, it cannot be taken out. We need to force those who are doing minerals here in the country to ensure that beneficiation is done locally and jobs are created locally using these mines.  Now we are chasing after people who have created jobs for themselves through their own means yet we have got minerals underground and we are not doing a lot to force those whose minerals fall in their hands to create jobs using those minerals through beneficiation. I think that we need to make sure that beneficiation is prioritised.

         HON. CHIGUMBU: I would want to say that it is very important for the Hon. Minister to encourage those who are into mining industry to make sure that they do their processes in such a way that it benefits us as a nation. From a Pan Africanist perspective, this is a very dangerous clause that must be really looked into and if there is a way that we can even come up with other punitive or measures to force every person who is into mining to make sure that all the minerals are beneficiated here in this country; we should be doing so. Like what other Hon. Members have just said, we cannot as a nation, punish those who are, out of desperation, trying to find means to survive; we go after them we tax them.  Then we have got those who are coming into our country exploiting our resources and then we exempt them from paying taxes; this is wrong Hon. Minister.

We have to relook into this and we should also look at it from a perspective whereby we need to know what is it taking away from us a nation. As a country as one of those African countries that has been endowed with a lot of minerals, we have not been benefiting from our minerals, we can not show anything for the minerals that we have. If we are to continue ignoring this issue of the need to process and beneficiate our minerals in this country, we will always remain a Third World country because we are not taking full advantage of our minerals.

         If we are to come up with measures that would force those corporates who are into mining, who are exploiting our minerals to beneficiate their minerals here in Zimbabwe, you would find that even in terms of our technology, it is going to also increase because the moment that we start to do those things here in our country, we will be innovative, we will come up with technologies. It is going to enhance us as a nation. It is also going to diversify our economy.

We are talking of people who are becoming hairdressers because they can not find jobs. So, that company that is doing mining it can only employ people who are into mining but if they start to beneficiate the minerals, you would find other people will be employed in that particular area. So, it is very important that if there is a way that you can put stringent measures to force those people to beneficiate that mineral here in Zimbabwe, especially platinum, given the fact that it is a mineral that also contains other minerals - we must be cognisant of that and we must be strict as a nation. We cannot continue to allow our minerals to benefit other countries whilst not benefiting isu vene venyika ino, tinotenda. 

         HON. DR. KHUPE: Thank you very much, Hon. Madam Chairperson and Hon. Minister. Platinum is a very strategic resource for us as a country looking at the fact that we are looking for new money and we can only get that new money through value adding our resources like platinum. I am also realising that this suspension is going to end December 2024 and my question to the Minister is that I hope and trust that they will not extend this suspension beyond December 2024 so that at least they start getting taxes form our strategic minerals like platinum. I thank you.

         HON. NYATHI: Thank you Madam Chair.  I would want to bring to the Minister’s attention that platinum has been mined for over 20 years in this country.  No beneficiation has been done over 20 years.  We are going after barbers and other small businesses trying to collect taxes yet we are letting people who have been mining for over 20 years in this country get away without paying tax or collection of tax on exportation of un-beneficiated platinum.   I would like the Minister to explain to us what he wants to achieve from this clause.  I thank you.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Chair.  I am coming back again because I am not convinced about these ‘big guys’ Hon. Chair.  The big boys are not paying tax.  Actually, they are getting incentives.  Exportation of platinum requires an export permit and to get that export permit is not easy but is possible to big guys..  So, I have this feeling that it is the connected that get this export permit and as such, these are the same people who are being protected.  They are protected from VAT and now on the 1% exportation tax.  I do not want to dwell much on the issue of beneficiation as it has been well explained.  Look at platinum, the Platinum Group of Minerals has gone to an all time low in terms of its prices.  I think at this stage, it was supposed to be incumbent upon the Minister to actually scrap the idea of exportation of raw platinum because we are getting absolutely nothing out of it at the moment.  Why do we not wait for prices to stabilise so that as a country, we benefit out of it.  I propose that we repeal that Clause 16 completely as it has no benefit to this country.  Actually, it benefits the few elite.  I so submit.

         *HON. HWENDE:  Thank you Madam Chair.  This issue was once brought into this Parliament and we have given a lot of extensions, we have acknowledged in this House that some of the mining companies declare only platinum whilst we all know there are seven other minerals including gold in platinum.  We cannot continue to lobby for such things.  This Parliament cannot support this amendment unfortunately.  Just yesterday, we were arguing over taxing the bottle stores and saloons and now you bring us back on a Friday to support people who are stealing from the country and exporting one mineral together with seven others in it.  This is a clause that we are willing to have the House divided over because we are not going to accept this.  We do not want to waste time.  I think the debate has been well noted.  Maybe we will give the Minister a chance to explain again why he wants to protect people who are stealing from the country whilst punishing ordinary people in barber shops in the locations.  So, instead of wasting time, the Minister can respond then we divide the House because there is no agreement on this clause at all.  In any case, there is no need to divide because it is only the Minister who is supporting it.  I thank you.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. TSITSI ZHOU):  Order Hon. Hwende.  Please take your seat.  Keeping quiet does not mean people are agreeing with what you are saying.  They are respecting you because we have given you the floor.  We need to have order in the House.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  Thank you Madam Chair.  I thank the colleagues for their contributions and comments on this clause.  We do have a tax on un-beneficiated exports of platinum of 15%.  It is also correct that we have given the platinum companies an extension but these platinum companies have shown a lot of goodwill.  They are actually investing USD1.5 billion in building a refinery.  We have started the refinery as Government through the Ministry of Mines.  They are investing USD1.5 billion in a base metal refinery.  This has been inspected by the Ministry of Mines who are the experts and they are saying that clearly this refinery will be ready by end of December this year.  They will not be supporting the companies to seek a further extension on this suspended beneficiation tax.  So, the assurance is that they will be ready.   By the way, the companies actually signed an MOU with Government committing to the refinery.  So, we are confident that by year-end, the refinery will be ready and I will not be asked to bring to this House a request for a further extension. But we are pleased that they have invested USD 1.5 billion into the economy in a new refinery.  I just urge Members to support this as it is only three months to go to year-end.  Members of the Portfolio Committee responsible for mining are encouraged to go and visit this refinery and see where it is, then give further assurance to this august House that the information that we are giving you as Government is correct. You are free to go and take a look and see if it is true or not.  This is a request that we thought was noble to allow the company to complete the refinery.  They are committed to beneficiation and that is the information that we have.  I thank you.

         *HON. CHIDUWA:  Thank you Madam Chair.  I think the policies that we make are guided by our leaders.  The President said that for us to get jobs and money for tax, our minerals should be processed in this country.  So, the issue of export tax is an issue that we support should in full.  However, for the measure that has been given by the Minister, it is only three months before year-end as he said.  I think three months is like a drop in the ocean, so I support the amendment.  But going forward Hon. Minister, the issue of jobs and revenue should be upheld.  We should not let our resources slip through our hands.  In the future, our children will only see holes.  If it is just for three months, we can agree with you because it was started last year.  Without beneficiation, tax should continue.  When we went to a workshop with the platinum guys, they said that they are only left with 10 years.  So, maybe some are about to leave and leaving us with holes.  So, for these three months, we can allow it but thereafter, we need to get tax from the platinum miners.

         *HON. MAPIKI:   Thank you Madam Chair.  I want to support what was said by Hon Chiduwa, but if all countries do not have value addition in their countries, our children will be poor. You can say these countries cannot pay for a certain period, but when that time comes to an end, they can close and leave us with nothing, but for the three months we can give in. Further than that, we should tighten the screws.

HON. DHLIWAYO: I want to support the last two Hon. Members on the issue of beneficiation. I think that approach will help us in not exporting jobs. If value addition is done in South Africa, it means the South Africans are the ones that are benefitting I terms of employment. If value addition is done in Australia, it means the Australians are the ones that are benefitting in terms of employment. I think the approach to ensure that the issue of setting up of the processing plant is expedited, will help with revenue collection.

The issue of beneficiation will help in reducing unemployment. It will also help us to address the public debt issue that we have. We are losing a lot in terms of even our export earnings because those are precious minerals that are leaving the country in a raw state. Yet, once they are value added, the prices of what they fetch on the international market are quite competitive. I really ask our Minister to expedite this issue and that way I think we will ensure there is a balanced and sustained economic growth. Thank you.

HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE: Thank you Hon. Chair. The condition is that it will expire in December 2024 and now we are about to start in October. Time has already lapsed because we are starting the new budget cycle next week. In that context, we need to underscore the key issue to say this colonial system where we send raw materials out of the country must come to an end once and for all. We cannot take out the future of this country in wholesale; including our mineral wealth.

The Hon. Minister of Finance must be challenged and even obligated to make sure that when we are discussing the 2025 budget, we have a clear departure that emphasises on beneficiation. That also does not allow our investors to get away with murder. For now, there is no need to divide the House, I suggest that we move on the understanding that we are left with only three months and in the next budget cycle, we will be hard on the Minister on this one.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Thank you Madam Chair. I just have a quick question to the Minister. It is not the first time that I have heard him talking about the US$1.5 billion from the platinum sector. I wanted to find out whether he has done a cost benefit analysis or computations to find out how much we are losing as a result of these provisions and what is being invested? The Hon. Minister should give us the figures from a cost benefit analysis so that it also helps us in our policy making. Thank you.

HON. DR. KHUPE: Thank you Hon. Chair. I understand that our platinum companies still have a refinery and the Minister has alluded to the fact that they have invested US$1.5 billion towards refineries and that by end of this year, they would have completed the refinery so that they start beneficiating. I understand that very much and I hope and trust that they will start to beneficiate. In the meantime, I also understand that there is no way they could have stayed without exporting platinum in its raw form because they wanted to raise funds to inject into the refinery. We understand that platinum comes with ten other minerals like palladium, gold and so forth. My worry is what Hon. Chiduwa said. Is it true that our platinum will be finished in ten years? That is what I am asking the Minister to elaborate. Thank you.

*HON. MUNEMO: Thank you Madam Chair. I want to say what the Hon. Minister said is good, but the issue of beneficiation is quite important, especially looking at our minerals. My request is that we need to look at companies which are mining in Zimbabwe. Maybe, ten years is not enough. There are few years left for those ten years to lapse. Indeed, we lose a lot as a country, but we want to benefit from such taxes like what the Minister is saying so that we will be able to process our own minerals. This will also create employment. We need to be patient with the few years that are left. Thank you.

HON. MUSHORIWA: I thank the Hon. Minister and the House. We need to understand what this clause is saying. This clause is saying that we should exempt the taxation of beneficiated platinum, not only for the three months that remain. The clause is saying from 1 January, 2023 to 31 December 2024, if you put that, that is 24 months.  The Hon. Minister is aware and I think the House is aware. Yesterday we grappled with Clause 6, when we said fine and people compromised to say those who have got trucks should pay USD550 a month per truck. People said it is business.

If I want to borrow what Hon. Mugwadi was saying that it is business, I do not think there can be any other business which can be bigger than mining. If we are to go over the Budget Statement that the Minister of Finance has done over the past five years, this promise of this platinum beneficiation plant has been muted. It was initially said that by 2021, they will have done it. We are now told that by 2024, but I can bet my last dollar, this will not be the last of it. I think as a matter of principle, the Hon. Minister should come here and say how much money we are talking of here and what we are going to forgo.

This is because without that, you find that the tax that we are being asked to forgo is US$3 billion and yet the plant is about US$1.5 billion. We are not building this country. The minerals that we have in this country do not belong to Ngezi Platimum, they belong to the people of Zimbabwe. After they have taken all the minerals, Zimbabweans will be left poor. The Minister needs to give us more information. Even if it means that we skip this clause, he has to allow his officials to get some other information. We need to know what we are going to defer. That cost benefit analysis needs to be done. I thank you.

         HON. BAJILA: Thank you Madam Chair….

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, Hon. Bajila.  Please, let us avoid repeating what has already been said.

         HON. BAJILA: I would like the Minister in his response to the interventions that other Hon. Members have said, to clarify whether since 1^st January, 2023, any tax has been paid to this effect that they are going to be reimbursed if they have already paid or they have not been paying.  Here we are condoning that they should not pay from 1^st January, 2023 to 31^st December, 2024.  Between 1^st January, 2023 to date, has any tax been paid on this specific business or not?  I am sure it will open this conversation better for us to understand what is happening because there has been a belief that the Minister is coming to request that this payment be not done, only for the next three months, when it is actually not so, it is being backdated to 1^st January, 2023.  We need clarity on that.

         HON. HAMAUSWA: Madam Chair, my concern is on the mineral called platinum.  Here, they are talking of exportation of unbeneficiated platinum. I think if you check, those who have done researches in the mineral sector, they will tell you there have been concerns; genuine concerns, that when they export unprocessed platinum, it actually goes with seven or nine other minerals.  The country will actually lose on these other minerals because in terms of the mining claims, the mining companies extracting platinum are only given a certificate to mine platinum.  Those other minerals are not covered.

 So, also as Parliament, now to accept this clause, we are also foregoing those other minerals.  We are actually supposed to be coming up with an amendment which will make sure that the country will not lose those other precious minerals.  From the estimations that were being made, you would find that may be the extraction of platinum is covered by two or three other minerals which are not being taxed.  I would suggest that for now, this clause, I do not think it will do good for our country.  We have a country endowed with those mineral resources and we are not getting benefits that are actually commensurate to our mineral resources.   If we then give a tax holiday for platinum, I do not think it would be a good idea Madam Chair.

         HON. TIMBURWA: Thank you Madam Chair.  I think the general consensus of the House is basically to say we are left with three months and these three months is no longer a long time to go.  I think the most important thing like the Minister highlighted, is the fact that if these tax breaks that are given to these mining companies are targeting for them to invest in the beneficiation process of these minerals, what we need to agree as this House, is to have strict monitoring and evaluation processes if these companies are going to adhere to invest on what they said.  This is what then adds into the long-term vision of this country, which is creating the beneficiation and evaluation process so that we can create jobs and everything.         So, what I would advise the Minister is to make sure there is a strict evaluation policy on what we would have agreed with these companies to invest these tax breaks and these tax havens into beneficiation plant. 

         HON. NYATHI: Thank you Madam Chair.  I would like to find out from the Minister, who owns these beneficiation plants that are being constructed?  I ask this question because if it is owned by one or two companies, we might have problems if these companies decide to close shop and say they are stopping operations in Zimbabwe.  We still have significant deposits of platinum along the Great Dyke, which are still to be exploited.  So, I would like to find out from the Minister, who owns these plants that are being constructed and what is the mitigation plan to these companies that are constructing these plants at the moment? If they decide to say they are closing shop, they would say the concessions where they are mining have exhausted the platinum and they want to wind up the services in this country.  What happens then to that plant?  We need to have a contingent plan.  What I would suggest going forward is, beneficiation plants should be primarily owned by the Government, not by individual companies, to safeguard issues like under-declaration, under-evaluation of figures of products that might be processed by an individual owner of a beneficiation plant.  I thank you.

         *HON. CHIGUMBU: Thank you Hon. Chair.  We do not want to do reverse psychology as we debate this issue.  We are talking about a few months; two months or so. It is not three months…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Member, we do not want people who repeat what has already been said.  Please add new ideas not to repeat what has already been said.

         *HON. CHIGUMBU: I wanted to correct that it is not three months but it is 24 months.  I thank you.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:   Thank you very much Madam Chair.  Let me thank Hon. Members for their contributions on this Clause 16.  I think really, I am persuaded by the contributions from – I will just mention two Hon. Members, Hon Chiduwa and Hon. Molokela-Tsiye, we are only left with three months, why do we not just support this amendment, this proposal.  Also Members of this august House through the Portfolio Committee on Mines and Minerals are free to request an inspection of these facilities and they can report to this august House as whether what Government has decided is in line with what they found on the ground or not.  This is what we found that these companies only need about the next three months to complete their refineries and then they will be fully compliant.  We thought that really if we could support them in this way, we will be doing a lot to create and save jobs.

I must say that I have been quite impressed with some of the backward linkages they have created across the economy.  They are almost running what we call venture funds where they have developed a network of suppliers, locally owned indigenous suppliers to supply various things to these mines and created an economy in the process. 

Hon. Chairperson, they have done a lot in terms of investment apart from the 1.5 billion in the refinery sector.  In the last two years, these companies have been unable to meet the penalty of 15% and we have been sending letters to say pay but they have been unable to pay. They have said that look they are actually investing on the contrary and they were able to comply once the refinery is in place. 

         I can assure Members of this august House, that we will not accept any further request for extension on this matter.  We are all on record, everyone has agreed that this really should be the position, we should not allow any further extension beyond December, 2024.  I really want to implore Members to work with us on this one and let just allow the companies do their refinery.  Members should go and inspect and see if it is there or not.  If not, then we will have to take some other action to make sure that we recover what we have lost because we have been misled. 

         Hon. Chairperson, I appreciate what Hon. Hlatywayo and Hon. Mushoriwa said regarding some cost benefit analysis and so forth.  I do not have the figures with me but what we know is that we have benefited in terms of the quantum investment for sure.  We can always workout to see how much we think we have lost in terms of the uncollected 15% penalty. The request that this is a precondition for accepting this clause before this House, again I would like to implore them that if we could work together on this one.  We only have three months to go, and we can all go to inspect to see if we are being told the truth by these companies. 

         Turning to the question by Hon. Dr. Khupe about whether it is true that there is only ten months left on the terms of the life of these mines, I cannot confirm that.  I would have to talk to the experts in the Ministry of Mines but also the companies themselves to confirm this fact.  I do not have any information on the longevity of the mines.  If I can implore Members to work with us on this one, we will make progress.  I thank you.

         HON. HAMAUSWA:  I have an objection Madam Speaker.  The Hon. Minister did not answer all the questions.  We also raised the issue that when they are exporting platinum, the ore actually consists of several other minerals which are also important.  The other issue that I wanted the Minister to clarify before we support him is we are assured of this opportunity to inspect but our powers will end the moment we sign this Bill.  When we request even to go and inspect, it will be very difficult.  We have a similar case where it was an uphill task for us to go to Penhalonga to see where miners are actually dying.   We also have a case of Manhize which we were also persuaded to support but at the moment we have not seen the benefits in terms of pricing, when we buy building materials like angle irons, they are still very expensive.  I want to give a comparative analysis Hon. Chairperson that we are being persuaded that if we give them tax heaven to construct this, the country will benefit but maybe there are some who are benefiting.  We are looking at the benefit that will go to the low-income earners, we would want to see if we are convinced.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Hamauswa, you came in a bit late and some of the submissions you are giving have been given already.  You had requested the Hon. Minister to respond to the first part of your contributions and I will allow the Hon. Minister to do so but we cannot continue to repeat what has already been said and the Hon. Minister has responded to that.  Hon. Minister if you can respond to the first part of his contribution.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  I want to thank the Hon. Member for a very important question. I think in terms of the composition of minerals within the ash or raw that is exported by these platinum companies, he is correct that there are other minerals and the companies when disclosing these minerals, we have requested for the disclosure through ZIMRA.  In fact, for the longest while one of the most valuable minerals was actually rhodium not even platinum, actually platinum price had plummeted but the rhodium price was actually high. We have been able to understand that composition, the five or so minerals and our taxes are taking into account prices of those minerals.  We have managed to get to the bottom of it. 

         Going forward, now, that there will be proper refining we will even be clearer as to what those minerals are and be able to tax them accordingly.  We are fully aware of what they are, they have been disclosed by the companies, they have been taken into account.  I thank.

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Hon. Chair, I object!  There is critical information that we need as policymakers to be able to make decisions and the Minister is not able to give those facts with respect to this particular provision.  Number one, is the cost benefit analysis.  Number two is the question that was raised by Hon. Dr. Khupe on the ten-year period for platinum mining in Zimbabwe.  That is very important for us to be able to make a decision on this particular Clause.  Policy making has to be evidence based, we cannot do feja feja with policies.  We need to understand and to be given the facts as Members of Parliament so that we are able to guide the Minister accordingly.  I strongly feel that in the absence of that particular information, it will be very difficult for us to proceed with this Clause.  I submit.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: Thank you Hon. Chairperson, can I persuade Hon. Hlatywayo that we should try to proceed.  The companies have said they are building a refinery.  They did an MOU with Government worth 1.5 billion.  They have assured us that it will be ready by end of year, 2024.  We are saying that Members of Parliament are free to go and inspect, just like what we have done as Government to prove that this is the case.  So, we can always come back and say that we are putting back the tax because you misled us, the refinery is not ready, it will not be ready by year end. We have that leeway as Parliament to come back and request that a clause like this be reinserted that the beneficiation tax ought to be paid.  Really, I want to persuade Hon. Hlatywayo that she goes along with this proposal and she can always come back as a legislator and request that this deferment be scraped and the company must pay back what it owes to Caesar.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Please may I remind the Hon. Members that it is part of your oversight role as Committees to inquire the effectiveness of policies. 

         HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Chair.  This is a very interesting observation by Hon. Members that we would want to see those who have been given concessions performing and fortunately as Members of Parliament, we have that responsibility to ensure that where Government has put a policy that affects either revenue or any other policy and the policy is effective. 

So I would like as well to say I think this is an opportunity for us as Members of Parliament, to take this because it has been a concern to us, that whether these companies that get tax holidays then pay back in terms of their implementation of issues we want implemented, like beneficiation, is a critical issue.  As long as minerals are being processed outside Zimbabwe, we never know whether we are going to benefit with all that comes from our land.  So, it is good if we have a company that has offered to say, can you give us an opportunity to then create a beneficiation structure so that the country fully benefits from its mineral resources.

So, I want us to support this.  It is very critical for this country to have manufacturing industries coming out of our minerals, agriculture and everywhere.  Unless we have that and we are sending raw materials and raw minerals to other countries, I am telling you 60% to70% of the values are lost somewhere and we are told wrong stories about our minerals.  So, if the Minister wants to give an opportunity for these minerals to be processed here by giving them some tax holiday for them to do that, I want us to support the Minister.

HON. MAMBIPIRI:  I just want to say, through you Madam Chair to the Hon. Minister, that issues of finance and I will say this again as I said yesterday, are about numbers.  If he wants the House to support this particular clause, he just has to share the numbers involved. If we are going to give this particular company a tax break that cuts across 24 months, it is also important that he reveals to this House this morning how much we are prepared to forego as a country by giving them this particular tax break.  I thank you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I have noticed that we have gone on and on with the debate and I put the question that Clause 16 stands part of the Bill.  Those of that opinion will say aye, those of the contrary opinion will say no.  I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it and the question is accordingly affirmed and the clause is hereby made – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – Order!  Can you take your seats and I will recognise one at a time.  On Clause 17 – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – No Hon. Members, if you want to speak, it is fine.  You just stand up and I will recognise you. You do not shout.

HON. MUSHORIWA:  Madam Chair, Parliament by nature, is based on rules and one of the things we need to do is to never try to thwart contributions by Members.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Mushoriwa, you have debated.  Can you please take your seat? We allowed debate to go on and I actually read and asked that those of that opinion to say aye and some of the Members said aye – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – 

HON. MAMBIPIRI:  I asked the Minister and the Minister…

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  You did not deny, you did not say no and the majority have said yes. We are going to proceed to Clause 17, substitution of section – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] –

HON. MUSHORIWA:  No!  Point of order!

HON. HAMAUSWA:  Point of order Chair!

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I put Clause 17, is there any debate – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – 

HON. HWENDE:  Madam Chair, how can we proceed like this.  There was a question by Hon. Mambipiri.

HON. MAMBIPIRI:  Madam Chair, please allow the Minister to respond to my question.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Order, order! – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – I am going to recognise those who make a contribution to Clause 17 – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] –  the Minister responded.  Order, Order!  May you all please take your seats?

HON. HWENDE:  Can you please recognise me.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Please, switch off your microphone Hon. Hwende.  I actually requested that you switch off your microphones and take your seats.  I will recognise you, but if you continue standing, I will not.  Hon. Mutseyami, please take your seat. – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order!  Can we have order in the House.  I want to remind you to avoid shouting.  The next time you shout, I am not going to recognise you until we finish the Bill.  Yes, if you keep shouting, I am not going to recognise you. 

HON. HAMAUSWA:  Madam Chair, I humbly request the Minister to respond to Hon. Mambipiri’s submission – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] –

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Clause 17…

         HON. HWENDE: On a point order Madam Chair, let us do the proper thing …

         *THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Hwende, if you stand and start talking then this makes it difficulty. Please sit down.  What you are doing is not honourable.  Take your seat Hon. Member, I am not taking your point of order. May you take your seat?

         HON. HWENDE:  You are just a Chair of a Committee; you are not the Speaker.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: If you are doing that then you are in contempt Hon. Member.  Please do not switch on your microphone Hon. Members.  Hon. Hwende, Hon. Mushoriwa may you sit down?

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  The Minister has conceded to suspend

Clause 16 to allow consultation.  The problem Madam Chair is that we want to make sure that when we pass this Bill, it is passed by the whole House.  The Minister knows and we have actually been heckling on matters to do with Bills.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  We had debate around Clause 16 adequately and I gave every Member who wanted to contribute and debate and gave the Minister three times to respond.  I actually went through the procedure and asked those of  that opinion to say, aye and those who were of the opinion responded and those who were objecting responded.  Some were busy shouting, we went through this and now we are at Clause 17, we are going to proceed.

Clause 16 put and agreed to.

On Clause 17:

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Chair.  Clause 17 in essence is intended to ensure the integrity of the value chains, particularly to deal with informal competition with informal traders.  It is actually called the route to market regulation.  What does it mean or entail?  It entails that no person is allowed to buy from a manufacturer.  If that person has no Value Tax Clearance and registered for VAT, those two important conditions are important.  So you are not allowed to buy from a manufacturer if you are not registered for VAT at the same time if you do not have a Value Tax Clearance or else if you want to buy, the manufacturer will make withholding tax of 5% from that person who is buying from the manufacturer.

My issue is that we have got those institutions or individuals who are liable for presumptive tax, for example, bottle stores and high-density bars which hardly earn US$100 per day.  They are paying presumptive tax probably of US$300 per month but because they only have a Value Tax Clearance and they are not registered for VAT, they are not allowed to purchase from the manufacturer.  I think it is unfair. 

My suggestion therefore is that can we just restrict this requirement of purchasing from the manufacturer only to the issue of a Value Tax Clearance and scrap off the requirement for VAT registration, then remain with the 5% withholding tax.  So, that is my contribution that let us remove the requirement for being registered for VAT and remain with the requirement for a Value Tax Clearance.  If the Minister finds it difficult, can he then add under the exemptions, other companies which are registered for presumptive tax like bottle stores? The reason would be to allow those bottle stores to purchase directly from Delta, for example, because the exemptions that the Minister has given, are limited to supplies to Government Ministries and branded milk, they are also limited to what is also important, what we call the wise waters of this earth.  Thank you.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  My problem with this clause is that we are going to be faced with what I call the law of unintended consequences in the sense that if you try to restrict procurement from the manufacturers in a country with a porous border, it does not matter you look at the North, South or the Eastern part of Zimbabwe.  At one time we were in Kariba.  We saw people crossing the Zambezi River because the water level has gone down and even at areas that traditionally had lots of water.  They are smuggling goods.  So, what tends to happen is that when you come up with a provision like this, you also then encourage people to smuggle goods from Zambia, Mozambique and South Africa at the expense of our manufacturers. What then tends to happen is that you go into a shop or retail outlet, you then find out that there will be too many goods coming from outside the country as if Zimbabwe does not produce. 

         One of the things that we need to understand is that inasmuch as we are trying to do and come up with a border control mechanism, the current situation as it stands is that our borders are porous. In the spirit that the Minister was pointing out that we have only three months to  end the year, my view is that this provision needs to be suspended or we do not pass this clause to allow the Ministry of Finance to look on the other side to then say what effect is it going to have on our own manufacturers, because they would try, by all means, to adhere to the dictates of the law but the net effect is that most shops will have imported goods which are actually smuggled.  I do not think that will be an intended consequence of us coming up with this clause. 

         So, my view is that Minister, give it three months, let there be a proper analysis because the talk from the manufacturers, they actually are saying that they are even afraid because generally the cost of production in Zimbabwe is slightly higher compared to our neighbouring countries.  Imagine, you put that five percent then all of a sudden people start going to South Africa.  They smuggle the goods; they do not pay duty and they do not do anything.  At the end of the day, our formal business will actually die.

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Madam Chair, with your permission, I propose that we suspend this clause.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  You want to defer this clause?

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  The Leader of the House is correcting me.  The correct language is, we are removing it.  We will revisit it later – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]– 

Madam Chair, can I formally move an amendment for the deletion of Clause 17 from the Bill.

         Clause 17 put and deleted

         On Clause 18, now 17:

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Madam Chair, it has to do with the introduction of surtax on sugarcane and beverages.  This tax was designed to support our cancer response as Government and as a country, the corrections have been going well.  We are now in the process of making sure we can procure additional equipment and cancer drugs to support those who are afflicted by the disease.  I thank you.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Thank you so much Hon. Chair.  I am a public health advocate and I believe that this clause will go a long way in helping us to achieve Section 76 of the national Constitution which speaks to the right to health for all citizens of Zimbabwe.  Having said that, my experience, because I have been a member of the Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care since 2018, is that this type of clause is supposed to increase funding for healthcare services.  As the Hon. Minister has alluded to, their plans to procure some cancer related diagnosis machines and so on, what I want to point out to the House and also to challenge the Minister is,  once we have change to this surtax, there is a situation that the Ministry of Health has already raised concern that as things stand today, the Ministry of Finance or Treasury in particular, does not ring-fence the specific amounts that have been collected like this particular tax.  We have a challenge of the rising costs of fighting non-communicable diseases in this country like high blood pressure, diabetes and all the cancers that we have.  The non-communicable diseases are now providing more morbidity mortality to our citizens more than the communicable diseases like STIs. 

         So, what I am challenging the Hon. Minister is to say we need to ring-fence this tax so that when the money comes to Treasury, the Ministry of Health knows that there is a specific amount that has been collected to fight non-communicable diseases like cancer.  What is happening and that is what I know from the Ministry of Health, they do not have any ring-fence principle. So, that is the request that if it has to be inserted in the clause that all funds collected under this tax must be ring-fenced for the purposes that they have been collected for, which means to finance public healthcare because at this moment in time, they are not ring-fencing these amounts.  Thank you.

         *HON. P. ZHOU: Thank you very much Madam Chairperson. I support this tax but my request is just like what happens with the sugar tax, the issue of cancer should be considered just like what the Hon. Minister said during the Question Without Notice segment that this would go a long way in procuring cancer machines. Some of us would really be glad when we go to hospital. This tax is important just like the sugar tax which should be looked at with oversight so that there is accountability.

         HON. DR. KHUPE: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I support this clause 100% because we want Zimbabwe to be a leader in cancer treatment.  Zimbabwe can only be a leader in cancer treatment when we have state-of-the-art equipment, when we do research on new modern cancer medications on all the cancers so that we are always ahead of the disease. I hope and trust that this money which Hon. Molekela-Tsiye is saying that must be ringfenced is going to make sure that we buy state-of-the-art equipment, is going towards making sure that we do research because research is important. We will come up with new cancer medications. It does not matter whether you have got stage 4 cancer, it can be treated if we are always researching on these cancers. People are dying these days every day from cancer because they do not know they have cancer, they only realise when it is advanced and as Zimbabwe, we cannot treat advanced cancers. So, we need to do research. I hope and trust that this money is going towards research and buying modern equipment and we want to see these things happening. We want to touch and feel them Hon, Minister. We want to move away from talking and acting on these particular things. I thank you.

         HON. CHIDUWA:  Thank you Madam Chairperson. I fully support the clause but what I wanted to find out from the Hon. Minister is, according to the law, all revenues and levies that are collected should be deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and we are hearing of ring fencing specifically to do with the issues of cancer. In order to legalise ring fencing Hon. Minister, you are supposed to bring a legal instrument to this House that will then allow you to ring fence all the revenue that you are collecting from sugar tax. I do not know if this has been done or if you are legally allowed to ring fence in the absence of such a law given that everything that you are supposed to collect according to the law is supposed to be in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I thank you.

         HON. TOGAREPI: I want to also agree 100% with Members on this tax. It is very progressive but I think this is one area that you should allow Members when we do our oversight or you do your reports here, to show us where the money has worked because this is a very critical area. I was reading somewhere that Zimbabwe is now a leader in terms of cancer fatalities which is not good and if we come up with this law and sugar definitely is one source of these unfortunate circumstances of cancer.

So, I think in your future reports and in our investigations as Budget and Finance Committee, we need to see targeted tax for specific outcomes. We would want to see the outcomes; we would want to see more cancer machines being bought and medication being bought.  We will then even encourage the Minister to increase the rate if we see our people not dying of the diseases. I thank you.

         HON. BAJILA: Thank you so much, I also want to agree with Hon. Members who have spoken earlier. Also noting that on Wednesday, I had this question on Question With Notice and the Minister reported that since the introduction of sugar tax, he has collected 18 million US dollars since this tax was introduced. Of the 18 million that has been collected, none of it has been spend to that effect, they are still some modalities that they have to go through with the Minister of Health.

I happen to sit in the Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care. We have toured the cancer treatment plants across the country, some of them need as much as two hundred thousand for them to start operating and we stockpiled eighteen million and people are dying. As the Chief Whip was saying, we are beginning to lead in terms of cancer mortalities whilst we are stock pilling this much money. I want to agree with Hon. Chiduwa as well that, if it is difficult to dedicate this money outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Minister must include a clause at this point in this Bill that allows for that money to be dedicated and not be part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund first because on Wednesday when the Minister made a response to this question….

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON. (HON. MACHINGURA):  Order Hon. Bajila, be worry of repetitions. Proceed.

         HON. BAJILA: Thank you. To do away with the issue of repetitions I will end here and then move to my next point which is the last. The next and last point is that we have asked this question to the Minister of Health before, what are you doing with respect to dealing with our advancement in dealing with cancer as a country. The Minister of Health has had a copy and paste answer again and again and the answer is we have not had any disbursements to that effect. Therefore, we want to implore the Minister here that we support this and we wish that he proceeds to make disbursements so that we prevent further cancer deaths.   

         ^*HON. HAMAUSWA: Thank you Hon. Chair. I want to support this clause. Cancer is a bad disease which affects a lot of people. My father suffered from cancer and I have a personal experience and I want to agree with the clause but the issue is that Hon. Minister, when this money is taken to the Ministry of Finance, there is a challenge; for example, tertial funds which are not being remitted where there are supposed to go.  So, to support the clause, we have fears as Hon. Members and we request that they allay our fears so that when the money is taken, it is remitted towards cancer, just like carbon tax and tobacco levy.  I wanted to give an example which was not mentioned.  I want the Hon. Minister to note our fears, for example, the monies that I mentioned, carbon tax and tobacco levy are being collected, but they are not being taken to where they are supposed to go.  Nevertheless, the Rural Electrification Fund and the AIDS levy are ring-fenced and they are taken to where they are supposed to go. Sorry Hon. Chair if I appear to be repeating but I wanted to say to the Hon. Minister, there are legal ways which will ensure ring-fencing of these levies so that at the end of the year, when you bring the 2025 budget, you will be able to tell us how the monies were used instead of being diverted to other responsibilities like roads and not used for treating or buying cancer machines.  I thank you.

         *HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE: Thank you Hon. Chair, I just want to add that we need to learn from history. When we were fighting against the HIV and AIDS pandemic as a country, we introduced the National AIDS levy.  Not only did we introduce the National AIDS levy, but we took a step further and set up what we call the National Aids Council (NAC).  The National Aids Council is a statutory body that is a creature of legislation.  It derives its existence from an Act of Parliament.  A few weeks ago, the National AIDS Council hosted a workshop for Parliamentarians in this august House.  So, maybe in our response to the clear rise of cases of non-communicable diseases, especially the cancers, we might need as Parliament and as the Ministry of Health, to push for setting up of a similar board to the one that we call the National Aids Council. That board will then address the issue of resource mobilisation in terms of responding to the rise of non-communicable diseases in Zimbabwe, bearing in mind that one of the success stories around the National AIDS Council is that it has also been able to mobilise resources outside the tax system of the country.  It has been able to mobilise resources from international development partners, from civil society partners in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Our fight against HIV and AIDS is a testimony of success.  Zimbabwe is used as a role model for defeating HIV and AIDS.  So, I think when we are fighting the diabetics, the high blood pressures and cancers of this world, we might learn from our successful fight against HIV and AIDS.  Maybe it is time to also set up a statutory body similar to the National AIDS Council, which will not only wait for money from tax payers or from the national fiscus, but that we will also add from the private sector, international development partners and non-governmental organisations to increase funding to fight this new type of pandemic.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE):   Thank you Chair, once again, I thank the Hon. Members for their very positive contributions to this Clause 18 pertaining to resources.   We are trying to set aside resources to support our cancer response programmes.  I am also pleased to really follow this debate because it is not just about supporting the acquisition of critical cancer machines, diagnosis purposes for radiation and so forth, but also cancer related drugs including research on cancer treatment.  I think that is really welcome.  Then proposals around creating a Cancer Research Council in future and so forth to match our response to HIV, all these are very progressive ideas but of course, the levy cannot fund sugar or colon tax and all those things.  I am also pleased to hear that the way this could progress is, we could ask other external agencies to contribute to this cancer fund or cancer council activities as the case with HIV/AIDS.  I really welcome the debate and I wanted to assure Hon. Chair and others that in terms of the powers of Ministry of Finance, one is able to direct these funds to cancer response without really the need to have a special fund with a Constitution in place, which can also be a cumbersome instrument to put in place. One is able to do that.  I did indicate that so far we have raised USD 18 million and we are working with the Ministry of Health to then proceed with procurement of what needs to be done and now we will include the element of research as well.

*HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE: As a public health Advocate, I am very concerned by the narrow approach that the Hon. Minister of Finance seems to be emphasising on because if you have noticed throughout this sitting, he has been emphasising on cancer but from a public health point of view, what we are facing is not just a cancer epidemic.  We are facing a rise in non-communicable diseases.  So, if we are going to collect a tax just to focus on cancer, we will not be able to respond adequately to the situation.  The statistics of morbidity and mortality are not just related to cancer, they are related to diabetes which is a non-communicable disease directly related to sugar.  They are related to hypertension, what we call BP.  They also rise in mortality or mobility statistics.  We need the Hon. Minister, especially the Hon. Minister of Finance, to be very conscious that the statistics are around non-communicable diseases that are on the rise and cancer is at the front, but it is not the only one that is now killing us as Zimbabwe.  So, if we are going to have a special tax for cancer and then we leave the other non-communicable diseases which are also on the rise, we will not be adequate in our response.  So, I feel both the Hon. Minister of Finance and the Hon. Minister of Health must be more holistic in their approach and not just limit the response to cancer related conditions, but to all other non-communicable diseases.

HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  I must say that I agree with the Hon. Member Molokela-Tsiye about the rising NCD being a leading killer in the health sector.  Chair and Colleagues, you may recall that we came before this House and also requested change in special taxes on cigarettes and also alcohol two years ago, and we did say this will go towards boosting our budget towards response to broader NCDs.  So, we are on a strategy to really attack and respond to this area. Therefore, I am actually agreeing with the Hon. Member.  Maybe he misunderstood me but actually we are in agreement.  His point about creating some kind of council can help us respond and derive a strategy.  It was a good one and we needed to understand how best to do it.  I am surprised that he rose to disagree when I thought we agreed.

         Clause 18 now Clause 17, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19 now Clause 18;

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Hon. Chair, it is with a heavy heart, but I normally want to put things to test on the basis of technicality without looking at emotions or what. It is with a heavy heart that I consider this clause as unprogressive. The clause is not reasonable Hon. Chair. In my view, these measures, any measure, any clause of the Finance Bill must help to improve revenue or to plug revenue leakage, if this measure that you have brought-we have agreed that this measure is not helping to increase revenue and helping to plug leakages, what we are supposed to do is to concentrate on compliance. Let us buy more electronic seals. There is what we call, I mean the new ones which are digitalised, which use a video reference such that we can see the truck on its way up to the point of exit. That is my first suggestion.

Secondly, let us also improve in terms of compliance checks by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority. ZIMRA can escort the vehicles to say how many trucks I want to transport to Zimbabwe and at 10 o’clock, we are moving with them. There is the first load, we go with them until they leave Zimbabwe with the assistance of ZRP, media attention and everyone that we think of. I think that will make this administratively easy. It will also congest our boarder posts. I honestly propose that we repeal this clause completely because there is this NOIC thing. If a company which purchases fuel from Zambia, for example, gets fuel from Beira, that fuel is going through the pipeline which is owned by NOIC. NOIC is under the Mutapa Investment Fund, the Mutapa Investment Fund which Parliament has no oversight on. To me, it creates a very big challenge.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Honourable, I will stop you. I have just been informed that the Minister has an amendment. Let the Minister put his amendment first and then we debate later.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Thank you Chair. I wish to move that this clause be deleted from the Bill and we defer it for discussion to a future date while we study the situation further. So, I formally move an amendment to delete this clause from the Bill. I thank you.

Clause 19 now Clause 18 deleted.

Clauses 20 now Clause 18 to Clause 24 now Clause 22, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25 now Clause 23:

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Chair. I wish to highlight that this clause is very progressive. However, I intend to propose the addition of another clause for the sake of avoiding any ambiguity in future. I was of the opinion that it is necessary for Parliament to, at some point, even once or twice a year, inspect the reserves which are backing our currency. I do not know how we can place it in that clause. If the Minister accepts, he knows how he is going to craft it in there, to just allow for parliamentary oversight so that there is no ambiguity. This is because at some point, we will be told that it is a security issue, you do not go to RBZ and so forth. We want it to be very clear for the avoidance of any doubt. Otherwise, the provision is so excellent. I support this one.

         HON. DHLIWAYO: Thank you Hon. Chair. I want to comment on the suggestion by the previous Hon. Members. I think it will not be that credible because we do not have experts who are internationally recognised. I think the issue of just having international auditors who will report on that is okay even for the public not Parliament going there. Thank you.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO: Thank you Chairperson. I think the suggestion by Hon. Madzivanyika is noble and I think we need to follow through. For a very long time, we have been asking as Members of Parliament, especially some of us who sit in the Budget and Finance Committee. In the interest of transparency and accountability and also just market confidence, to make sure that the reserves that we are saying are actually there, it is important in light of our oversight role as parliamentarians to be able to access those reserves. I wholly support the suggestion to have that clause. Thank you.

*HON. MUGWADI: Thank you Chairman. I do not have many words, but some places are not open to the public. I thank you.

*HON. HAMAUSWA: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The issue that our currency is backed by gold is very good. I am supporting the idea that we should go and verify. I think as a nation, we should have been updated like from January when we started using ZiG, we have so much amount of gold accumulations. It boosts our faith in the currency. So, we are pleading with the Minister that we should look at the plea that has been brought forward by Hon. Madzivanyika because there were issues in the paper that the gold which has been reserved was sold. We do not know whether it is true…

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I think that is not part of the clause that we are discussing here.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: Thank you Hon. Chair.  I would like to thank the Hon. Members for their contributions.  Yes, we have said that the auditors ought to audit these reserves and give reports as to their quantum and flow.  This, they will do but also as things stand, Members of Parliament, especially the Budget and Finance Committee is free to visit the Central Bank and request to inspect the volt in terms of verifying.  You are allowed to do that, there is no need to put further law.  Already, through the oversight role, the Committee is allowed to do that. 

         I am aware that the Committee has already visited the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) and Treasury, I do not think given the questions then, they were able to request to see the volts but it was until further discussions with the Central Bank Governor and officials on the conduct of monetary policy to support our currency to deal with instability. This is already allowed.  They are free to do that and the auditors will do more in producing a report.  I thank you.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Thank you Hon. Chair.  I would like to concur with the Minister to the fact that as Parliament, we must be allowed because the law provides for such.  However, Hon. Chair…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: He says you are allowed.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Yes, I am concurring with him on the position of law but you know why I wanted to put it in the Act, it so happened some time when we visited RBZ, there was indication that there was an issue of this high security area, you cannot be allowed in.  I wanted this for the avoidance of any doubt. Hon. Chair, we…

         HON. DHLIWAYO: On a point of order.  I think the Hon. Member is lying to this House.  When we went to the RBZ, no one requested to see the volts, that is the truth.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Madzivanyika, the issue has been dealt with, the Minister says you are allowed.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Yes, will you allow me to continue.  I agree with the Minister, I do not have any problem with what he has said.  It is actually good but is there any harm?  Do we suffer any prejudice, if we put that clause, for the avoidance of any doubt tomorrow?  Do we suffer any challenge, if there is any prejudice, then let me know?

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:   Hon. Chair, the permission for the Committee or Members of Parliament to visit or request information from the Central Bank is a blanket one.  When you go to a Central Bank, they do not just store gold, they store other things.  For example, the Committee may want to see the engine that manages our Realtime Gross Settlement System, which is a very fast settlement system actually.  If you were to make that request, there are many other things that you may want to find out about.  I do not think really we need to then put in this clause in terms of the law that Hon. Members of Parliament must go and inspect.  It is not necessary; you are already allowed to do that.  You are also allowed to inspect for many other things under the Central Bank or Treasury.  So, there is a blanket permission.  There is no need to be this specific by inserting some clause.

         Clause 25 now Clause 23, put and agreed to.

         Clause 26 now Clause 24 to Clause 28 Now Clause 26, put and agreed to.

         On Clause 29 now Clause 27:

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, I rise on a matter of principle.  The Finance Bill should actually confine itself to the issue of taxation and mechanisms to raise tax.  I think we need to make sure that some of these amendments, like Clause 29 seeks to bring an amendment to an existing legislation through the back door.  It should not be allowed to happen, under the banner of the Finance Bill.  The reason why the Finance Bill is given its status, which is different from the other Bills, is because of its revenue generation mechanism for the country.  Other Bills should be allowed to go through their normal processes so that Parliament does scrutiny.  We know for a fact that the Procurement Amendment is actually being drafted. I do not know now but the last time we heard that the Cabinet Committee on Legislation was actually looking at the Public Procurement and Disposal Act.  My humble view is that this Clause 29 will also apply even to the other clauses which do not have anything to do with taxation, they should actually be expunged from this Bill and that they actually come through the normal processes.  I thank you.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I am much interested about Clause 29 (10) which says, “notwithstanding any exemption granted to any entity.  Under subsection 9, such entity shall nevertheless comply with the guidelines issued by the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe, governed by the criteria by which the entity shall regulate its procurement practices as read in Section 44 of the Public Finance Management Act”.  May be for clarity’s sake, I wanted to confirm with the Minister, if this clause is now bringing in the Mutapa Investment Fund under the procurement regulations and the Procurement of Public Assets and Disposal of Public Assets Act.  Thank you.

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. POF. M. NCUBE): This clause seeks to give more power to the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe to monitor compliance and to provide a framework where an exemption can be revoked if public entities do not act responsibly.  It is a very good clause which shall enhance the quality of procurement, processes of procurement, including the principle of value for money.  This also include entities under Mutapa.  It really covers all public entities. It is seeking to strengthen compliance and this is a very positive thing that I would like my Hon. Colleagues to understand.  I thank you.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, why are we doing this Hon. Minister, I know there is something that is already going on in terms of the amendment of this Procurement Act.  What is it that is so urgent that you feel that it needs to be brought in as a standalone without the need of it coming through the proper amendment to the Bill?  The danger of having this is that we actually dilute the power of Parliament in making sure that when you do the Bills, they are subjected to public hearings and public debates so that people will also contribute to the lawmaking process. 

         Part of the reasons, we agree, finance matters, we are in agreement, we need to do them urgently but for others I think it is important that we try by all means to preserve and allow Parliament to do its work.

         *HON. HAMAUSWA: Firstly, I want to thank the Minister for doing a good job by putting aside reserved businesses for people of Zimbabwe. …

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  That is a different clause, please sit down.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I would like to concur with Hon. Mushoriwa’s submission that it is important to try to look at the Procurement Act itself in its entirety - to try by all means to proffer amendments.  However, I would like to agree with this provision that allows the 21 companies under Mutapa Investment Fund to be subjected to the procurement regulations of this country.  I think it is so progressive in my understanding.  However, I do not takeaway his submission that it is necessary also to look at the Procurement Act in its totality. 

         HON. PROF. NCUBE:  Hon. Chair, I think if we were to wait for the Bill that Hon. Mushoriwa has referred to on procurement to come through Parliament, debated, passed and so forth, Bills do take time.  Just look at the amount of time we have taken on just the Finance Bill which is going to be a special Bill, it is incredible. Procurement is taking place continuously.  So, we need to plug the holes immediately by making sure the value for money principle is not violated or undermined that these exemptions are minimised, that is what this clause is trying to do, to minimize leakages or whatever corruption when it sets in – we want to make sure corruption is minimised in this case. 

We will allow more oversight from PRAZ, this is what this clause is trying to do and certainly cover entities under Mutapa.  Procurement is taking place all the time.  We cannot wait for the Bill and we are losing money because we are having to overpay for certain procured items because they have not been subjected to proper value for money examination. 

Clause 29 now 27, put and agreed to.

Clause 30 now Clause 28, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31 now Clause 29:

HON. MUSHORIWA:  I actually do not even see the relationship of this clause to this Bill.  I do not understand why the Minister of Finance sees it prudent for him to move from financial issues and want to come to the Privileges Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act.  I think allowing such ways of smuggling legislation through the Finance Bill is not the best thing that we can ever do.  This one is actually dangerous without even looking at the merits or demerits of what is contained here.  As a matter of principle, we want the Minister to actually remove this clause.  Let these things come through the relevant processes.  I can understand when there is an urgent need but most of these things, allow Parliament to do its work so that we do not then use the Finance Bill as a Bill to smuggle certain amendments to other various pieces of legislations.  To that extent, on a matter of principle, I actually think that the Hon. Minister should concede expunging this clause. 

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I agree with Hon. Mushoriwa. I think he took the blanket approach which is very good because there are clauses that are there including my children to declare their assets.  I do not think me being a Member of Parliament, my children have nothing to do with that one.  I think let us suspend this or repeal it completely, delete it.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Hon. Chairperson.  Unless if I am missing something here.  All the Members have been signing a declaration like this but it was not part of our legislation.  We have a court case that indicates that public officials must sign and an Act must be there.  This is one thing that you as Hon. Members, when you came in, you signed this here at Parliament.  It is very critical, it is actually linked to what we are doing here because as Hon. Members, you affect public finances.  So, when you come in as Hon. Members, you should declare your assets then you will be able to track, to say when you were elected an Honourable Member of Parliament, you had probably ten cows, after two years, all of a sudden you now have five thousand, there is something that has influenced within the system.

 So, it is not only about revenue collection but it is about ensuring that checks and balances are done along the way to ensure that there is efficient use of resources.  We do not want that when we have State resources for us as public officials, we get kickbacks and then we have unexplained wealth because of the influence that we have.  I implore that this clause for the two reasons, that we need to comply with what the court says and also because we have been doing it anyway, we just want to translate that which we have been doing in ad hoc manner into a legislative process.  That is required by an Act of Parliament.  This one, I think it will not be that negotiable.  I want the courts to pronounce that what we did here was against their order that we must do this. I so submit.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  I am not surprised that the Minister of Justice is the one who stood to respond to these particular questions raised by Members of Parliament.  On the High Court case that he is referring to, the High Court ordered that you bring before this House an Act of Parliament in line with Section 198 of the Constitution that is broadly targeting public officials and not Members of Parliament alone.  In fact, you are actually in contempt of the court order.  You are supposed to gazette an Act of Parliament in line with the principles of public administration that are outlined in Section 198. So, this particular clause does not arise because that is not what has been ordered by the court.  The court is looking for an Act of Parliament not to look at Members of Parliament but to look at public officials, including Ministers by the way.  That is the Act of Parliament that we are looking for here in this House in line with the court order.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  In principle, I am a firm believer in accountability and transparency, so this particular Clause, I would ordinarily support it passionately, but what I am concerned about is us as an august House violating normal procedure of law making. 

Under normal circumstances, we are not supposed to hijack the Finance Bill.  We are supposed to ask the Hon. Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to bring a Bill into this Parliament so that we can debate it and that we can also give the public the opportunity to input into the Bill.  Accountability or integrity of public officials, especially elected officials like Parliamentarians, is something of interest to the millions of Zimbabweans out there.

My constituency in Hwange Central would be interested to know how we are putting a law to make sure that I have got accountability and transparency and I am a man of integrity as a politician.  So we want to encourage the Hon. Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to do the right and proper thing, which means he has to go through the          Cabinet approval process, he has to do the gazetting, he has to allow the Portfolio Committee to go out to the public and he has to allow the people of Zimbabwe to input into this process and make sure that we enact this law properly.  There is no need to hijack the Finance Bill, there is no need to insert a clause surreptitiously and clandestinely.  So I challenge you Hon. Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, to get off the back of the Hon. Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion and do your job and follow the correct order procedurally.  Thank you.

         HON. DR. KHUPE:  Thank you Chair.  As much as I understand what Hon. Hlatywayo and Hon. Molokela are saying, I think it is standard practice for Hon. Members to declare their assets.  If you look at the South African Parliament, they are doing the same thing.  As Members of Parliament, we have nothing to hide.  We want to declare our assets so that the public knows that I have worked for wealth that I have.  I did not amass it through dubious means.  So, I think it is important as Members of Parliament to declare our assets so that the public knows that we are working for them and not working for ourselves.  I thank you.

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  On a point of clarification.  I just want to make it very clear…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. MACHINGURA):  Point of order Honourable!

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  On a point of order Hon. Chair, I do not know how a point of clarification arises when the Hon. Members are debating.  Nobody has responded. So what does she want clarification for?

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you Honourable.  Yes, it is not…

         HON. G.K. HLATYWAYO: But he has to wait to hear what I wanted to say.  You had already ruled and you had already given me the chance to do the point of clarification.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I am not taking away that chance from you.  All I am saying is, when you put yourself across, use the right nomenclature. 

         HON. G.K. HLAITYWAYO:  Thank you Chairperson.  I just wanted to make it clear that what we are advocating for in this House is not to have a carte blanche for Members of Parliament not to declare their wealth, no.  We are in full support of public officials declaring their assets because we believe in transparency and accountability.  I believe in transparency and accountability. What we want is the proper way of bringing the particular provisions and the particular Act. 

What we are rejecting is the process of trying to highjack the Finance Bill for the purposes of saying I have adhered to a High Court judgement when we have not done so and what we are saying is that beyond Members of Parliament, Ministers and all public officials must be able to do the same in line with what has been provided for in Section 198 of the Constitution, which lays out the principles of public administration around transparency and accountability.  That is what we are advocating for.

         We need to do things properly and we are waiting for an Act of Parliament from the Hon. Minister who has been ordered by the court to do so, so that we debate this issue.  Thank you.      

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I concur with Hon. Hlatywayo.  We are not running away from public scrutiny.  Actually, the Act that is being referred to by the court judgement is not necessarily the Privileges and Immunities Act.  It might be a different Act which clearly relates to the declaration of assets by all public officials.  That is the gist and you will see that in the majority of cases, our Hon. Members of Parliament do not hold cash.  The majority of corruption is in the Executive or the majority of allegations of corruption are in the Executive.  So we want that Act which specifies, which cuts across the latitude of public service.  Thank you.

         HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I hear what Hon. Members are saying but I am worried whether Members of Parliament have forgotten that Minsters are Members of Parliament and they are public officials.  They are Members of Parliament.  That is why they sit here and Mr. Chair, I think what the Minister brought in the House is related to the present debate, not what the Minister is supposed to bring because of some court ruling.  They are two different things.  Let us deal with what we are debating now and see whether it is good for us to have that scrutiny as the Minister has raised.  Let us not go and start perusing court papers.  That is not what we came here to do.

         HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Hon. Chair, this amendment is where it is supposed to be and Hon. Chair, there are two amendments.  We are not only speaking to the Hon. Members of Parliament alone, but all public officials.  So, it is not even about Members of Parliament alone.  The problem is that some did not read everything, so they thought we are talking about Hon. Members of Parliament alone. 

I agree with Hon. Togarepi.  All Ministers, so to speak, are Members of Parliament.  They sign a declaration of Parliament and it becomes academic when you look at me and the Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion.  We do not vote but we are Members of Parliament by virtue of us being Members of the Committee on Standing Rules.  We make decisions here at Parliament.  So, we cannot then say while we are making decisions for everyone in the Committee of Standing Rules, those rules do not bind us. 

Hon. Members, we should not be worried about the court case.  What they should be worried about which they must leave to me is, if I am not in compliance with whatever the court says, the court will do that, but we believe it is a good thing to amend the two Acts, that is the Privileges and Immunities as well as the Money Laundering Act through this.  It is allowed.  That procedure is there and we believe this is related to ensuring that we maintain the fiscus in a sound state.  I submit Hon. Chair.    

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Thank you Chair.  I thank the Hon. Members for the debate and contribution right across and I really feel that both Clauses 31 and 32 support each other.  Clause 31 pertains to Members of Parliament, which includes Ministers and Clause 32 refers to the Public Officers and the Acts that pertain to them are outlined in that list under Subsection 2(a) – (h).  I know we are not debating Clause 32 but it is important as I make the point referred to Clause 32.  This really is in order as it does speak to the conduct of public officials, Ministers and Members of Parliament in the stewardship of their mandate to make sure that they do not fall victim or rather, they do not fall foul to any form of money laundering in the accumulation of their assets which does have an implication on financial conduct as well as the fiscus.  I thank you.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  I seem to be on your blind sight and I do not know why.  Thank you, Hon. Chair.  Having looked at the clause as proposed…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order Honourable, I think you should withdraw those words.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Sorry, you have been missing me three times already, that is why I mentioned that.  I stand up and you move on while you are not looking for other ...

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  But you have debated, every time that you stood up you debated.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Yes, but I have had to remind you that I have been standing, that is what I wanted to say.  So, next time if you look to your left you will see me.  I will withdraw….

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Molokela, please withdraw what you said.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  I withdraw Hon. Chair and I request you to look to your left.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  Can you proceed.

         HON. MOLOKELA-TSIYE:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I am looking at the clause. In 2018, when I joined the Parliament of Zimbabwe, I was asked to sign in a declaration form of my assets.  In 2023, when my term of office ended, nothing happened, no follow-up happened.  In 2023, when I returned for my second term, I was asked again to sign a completely different brand-new declaration.  What I learnt from that five years was that there was no effort whatsoever to double check whether from 2018 to 2023 I had accumulated any suspicious property or assets.

         What I am learning from that experience is that this clause must be designed in such a way that in the event that parliamentarians are expected, maybe within their first year of term of office, to register their assets, it is also expected that there be a review at the end of their term of their assets because the purpose of this clause is to promote political leaders of integrity, accountability and transparency.  It is not just to submit personal information.  So, I need a clause to be inserted that also mandates a process of review of assets at the end of term of office to verify whether that particular parliamentarian has had any suspicious accumulation. 

Related to that, the people who are concerned about accountability and transparency are the public, the citizens of Zimbabwe.  So, to the extent that they have no idea from 2018 to 2023 whether Hon. Molokela accumulated any suspicious assets after signing a declaration form in 2018, it means that it is not of any use in terms of promoting public perception of our political leaders as leaders of integrity.  So, there has got to be a clause that then allows for public scrutiny or a public register where a citizen of the country can actually go maybe to an office at the Parliament of Zimbabwe and see what their Honourable Member of Parliament has declared so that they are able to see that after five years, there is nothing unbecoming about their property status or assets. 

So, we need two separate clauses; first one to review the assets status after five years and the second one to allow public members or institutions to go to a register where they can view what has happened in those five years. Otherwise, it is not of any use to just declare what I have.  I can even not declare some things that I already have.  So, we are not fighting corruption, promoting accountability and integrity in that context.  Thank you.

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Hon. Chair, I still insist that what we need before this House is an Act of Parliament.  We need a Bill that speaks to section 198.  Whilst I understand what the other Honourable Members are saying in terms of Ministers being Members of Parliament, public officials are not just elected officials. We also have Permanent Secretaries and some of them have been notorious by the way, in terms of corruption. When we talk about public officials, we are not talking…

         HON. TOGAREPI:  With all due respect, Honourable Member, we cannot call people who are not in this House who cannot defend themselves as notorious.  They should be here if they were going to defend themselves.  We cannot do that.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Hlatywayo, please withdraw.

         HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Hon. Chair, I did not mention a name and it is on public record.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Hlatywayo, you referred to a particular class of people…

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  Anyway, Chairperson, I withdraw.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, proceed.

HON. G. K. HLATYWAYO:  The point that I am making which is the crux of my contribution is that public officials go beyond the Members that are in this House.  So, what we need, in line with the court order that was given, what we want is an Act of Parliament that speaks to transparency and accountability issues around declaration of assets. It even goes to the extent of saying the Act of Parliament must also speak to sanctions that must be given to those that do not declare their assets or that do not abide by the principles that are given in Section 198.  

So, I maintain strongly that what is being proposed in this Finance Bill must not be in this Finance Bill.  What we need is an Act of Parliament and this is very urgent in light of the high levels of corruption in this country.  It is very urgent that we have this Act of Parliament that directs public officials to declare their assets.  So, we need this as soon as possible and the Minister of Justice must do this as a matter of urgency.  I so submit.

HON. CHIGUMBU:  Thank you Chair.  It is very important that we do not come up with piece-meal solutions to wholesome problems.  We cannot sit here as a Parliament to offer a piece as a solution to a problem that cuts across all public officials.  I think this is a wrong approach and I want to concur with Hon. Hlatywayo that we cannot smuggle this important issue into a Finance Bill.  It has to be brought to Parliament as a separate item…

HON. J. THSUMA:  On a point of order. I think even the previous Hon. Chair said it here, that let us stop repeating things that have been said already.  I think Hon. Hlatywayo had put her point. There is no need for everyone to be standing up and just buttress on the same point.  You would rather have a situation whereby you are allowing the Minister to respond to that because we are going round and round.  Someone stands up and says one point and that point is said over and over in ten minutes but they are repeating the same thing.  Let us behave honourably and know that if you have a point, just say it and sit down, and do not repeat what someone else has said.  We have constituencies to go to.  We have got cells to go and build.  Isusu vamwe tine mastructure. Thank you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Member, please do not repeat things.

HON. CHIGUMBU:   Okay, but it is very important to re-emphasise when those who are supposed to hear that which is being said are also hard-headed.  We have to re-emphasise these issues because we …

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Standing Orders do not allow emphasising.  We do not repeat things.  When a point has been said, it has been said.

HON. CHIGUMBU:   I am not repeating but I am giving an advice to say we cannot have a piece-meal solution to a wholesome problem.  Let us solve this problem wholesomely. Thank you.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Mine is a question.  With due respect Hon. Minister, do you suffer any prejudice if you allow this process to go through an Act of Parliament or not? 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Which Minister are you addressing your question to?

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Minister of Finance.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Alright.

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE: Thank you very much.  I will not suffer any prejudice certainly if it is included.  If it is not included, then we have a lacuna.  I do not know how long it will take to bring a new Bill to Parliament to deal with these issue of money laundering and about accountability.  It will take a while to consult the public; who knows, it will keep another two years before we bring it.  Meanwhile, harm is being done by public officials not conducting themselves correctly, including Ministers or Members of this august House.  So, there is no harm in including these two Clauses 31 and 32.  On the contrary, we are closing a gap that the courts have actually instructed us to close because they also feel that the public wants this gap to be closed.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Point of clarity Hon. Chair. 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  What is your point of clarity?

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I thought maybe the Minister did not understand my question.  We agreed that this must be included but the method of inclusion is what is causing a lot of friction here.  The question was, is there any prejudice that the Minister suffers if he removes this provision and allow a process of an Act of Parliament to take charge and include it.  We are in agreement in terms of inclusion but the process. Thank you.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Member, the Minister answered.  I think I heard him answer. 

         HON. HAMAUSWA:  My proposal is, can the Minister assure us that whilst he goes on to include this clause, he is going to liaise with the Minister of Justice to bring a comprehensive Bill during the term of this Parliament.  Why I say so Hon. Chair is that there are proposals that were given by Hon. Members and also the principle that the public who actually elect Members of Parliament should also contribute to this Bill.  The Bill should cover all public officials.  So, I think we can do it that way.  We have this clause and then you agree that we are going to have a more comprehensive Act which will then cover the concerns that are being raised by Hon. Members. 

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Can I say something so that we do not go in circles.  Hon. Chair, all the public officials are included.  Whether you are a Member of Parliament, a Permanent Secretary or somewhere in a parastatal, you are included.  So, I am not sure who has been excluded. 

         Secondly, what I want to say is, if you declare your assets, there is no need to follow you up.  There are several pieces of legislation that will be used to follow you up if need arises.  If your accounts are noticed that there is a suspicious behaviour, then the relevant authorities will visit Parliament, the Public Service Commission and request for the file.  Can we see what this Hon. Member declared?  Then, they will use the information that you gave them.  We do not want unnecessarily the members of the public getting to know everything that we are doing.  We are declaring so that you will use that information when the relevant organs like the Financial Intelligence Unit or our police officers are now investigating.  So, do not allow for over-exposure so that everyone will know that Honourable so and so has got two goats.  That is what he got into Parliament.  That is not the purpose of declaration of assets.  It is there so that whenever the time arises that there is need to look into those records, the relevant authorities will do that.  Not only that, if a Member of Parliament is interested and has shown sufficient interest, that information he needs it.  The Data Protection Act can be invoked for you to get that information.  So, we do not want to come up with several laws.  We are amending the laws and this is an Act of Parliament for those that are saying we need an Act of Parliament.  We have satisfied what the Constitution says that this is an Act of Parliament.  We do not have to come up with entirely a new Act of Parliament.  We can amend the Privileges Act to ensure that it covers that which is required.  It satisfies and that particular Act of Parliament will cover the declaration of assets.

         The Anti-Money Laundering Act will cover.  It is an Act of Parliament that will cover the declaration of assets for the rest of public servants.  So, this amendment is a very good one.  Everyone that is concerned about this, more-so Hon. Members, I do not see why they are worried about it.  I agree with Hon. Khupe.  We need this and we have been doing it.  We have been signing this.  It is only that we want to make sure that it is within an Act of Parliament as required.  Thank you. 

         HON. PROF. M. NCUBE:  I propose we can proceed.

         Clause 31 now Clause 29, put and agreed to.

Clause 32 now Clause 30, put and agreed to.

         House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): I thought that the Bill - can it be submitted to the Parliamentary Legal Committee now, and then it can issue its opinion without delay.

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order Hon. Members, business is suspended until 2p.m. – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] -

HON. TOGAREPI: Up until 1330hours, Members must go and eat and then come back.

THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Please note that lunch is served for everyone for free and business is suspended until 1330 hours – [AN. HON. MEMBER: Mukaita arrogance ndopanozosimuka nyaya yeQuorum hapana kutaurirana kwaitwa.] -  

Business was suspended at Quarter to One o’clock p.m. and resumed at Twenty-five Minutes to Two o’clock p.m. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

         THE ACTING SPEAKER (HON. MACHINGURA): I have received a Non-Adverse Report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Finance (2024) Bill [H. B. 8A, 2024].

         Consideration Stage: With leave, forthwith.

CONSIDERATION STAGE

FINANCE (2024) BILL [H. B. 8A, 2024]

         Amendments to Clauses 6 and 13 put and agreed to.

         Bill, as amended, adopted.

         Third Reading: With leave, forthwith.

THIRD READING

FINANCE (2024) BILL [H. B. 8A, 2024]

         THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. PROF. M. NCUBE): Mr. Speaker, I now move that the Bill be read the third time.

         Motion put and agreed to.

         Bill read the third time.

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Members for their dedication by coming today in order to conclude the business of the Finance Bill. We sincerely thank you. Having said that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The National Assembly accordingly adjourned at Fourteen Minutes to Two o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 24^th September, 2024.