• Version
• Download 0
• File Size 626.49 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date September 26, 2024
• Last Updated March 12, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 26 SEPTEMBER 2024 VOL 50 NO 89

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Thursday, 26^th September, 2024

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

PRAYERS

(THE ACTING SPEAKER in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE ACTING SPEAKER

PETITION RECEIVED FROM MR. REUBEN AKILI

         THE ACTING SPEAKER (HON. MACHINGURA):   I wish to inform the House that on the 9^th of September 2024, Parliament received a petition from Mr. Reuben Akili representing the combined Harare Residents Association, beseeching Parliament to summon Harare City Council and the Environment Management Agency to account for their actions in addressing environmental degradation caused by gravel extraction in Warren Park Hills.  The petition was deemed inadmissible due to a discrepancy between its grievances and its prayer.  Thus, the petitioner will be advised accordingly.

BILL RECEIVED FROM THE SENATE

THE ACTING SPEAKER:  I also wish to inform the House that the Senate has returned the Finance (2024) Bill [H.B. 8A, 2024] with recommended amendments to new Clause 17, new Clause 19 and the substituted Clause 29 which now becomes 30 in terms of paragraph 7, Subsection 1 of the 5^th Schedule to the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

         HON. MUWODZERI: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  My question of national interest is on the issue of energy, which I want the Minister to possibly appraise this House on the developments that are taking place in Muzarabani by a company called the Invictus Exploration.

         THE ACTING SPEAKER:  Hon. Member, why do you not translate your request into a question for Wednesday to the Minister.  I think you can ask the Minister on Wednesday and explain what you want to know about that project. 

         HON. MUWODZERI:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. 

         HON. MUTSEYAMI:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  Mine is a point of privilege. I wanted to put it across yesterday but the Speaker advised me to do it today.  I thank you so much for that Mr. Speaker Sir.  I put reference to the budget in 2023 before the Harmonised Elections in which we approved a budget.  In that budget, we approved for 210 Constituencies to be allocated an equivalent of US$50 000 for development in those Constituencies as the CDF.

 Now in the year of our Lord 2024, we did another budget and in that budget again, we approved USD$50 000 to be put across to 210 Constituencies for the purpose of developing constituencies under the CDF programme.  Now, my prayer comes, the Hon. Speaker of Parliament, Hon. J. F. Mudenda, announced in this House that Constituencies will be allocated US$50 000 from the CDF programme.  My question is, this amount which is going to be allocated to the 210 Constituencies, is it with reference to the 2023 Budget of the Ninth Parliament which is owed to the 210 Constituencies as it was then put into an Act after the process of the Finance Bill or its allocation is to do with the 2024 Budget?  Adding on to that, the US$50 000 which is going to be allocated to 210 Constituencies, I did my homework with regards to this money, it has been put to my attention that the US$50 000 will be allocated to Constituencies in ZiG form, specifically with the rate of that day which will be equivalent to US$50 000. 

Hon. Speaker Sir, the rate that we are talking about is 14 point something which is less than 15 as the RBZ position with regards to today’s rates.  That is how this money will be disbursed.  If you use that rate with what is on the ground in all the supermarkets today, that money will be equivalent to about US$15 000.  That is if you manage to spend it within three to four days as soon as it is allocated into your Constituency account.  My prayer, which we need Mr. Speaker Sir, is for you to pronounce to our country so that the citizens of this country will be made aware so that Members will not be crucified.  May you clarify, when you say US$50 000 will be allocated to constituencies, will it be the US$50 000 hard currency or it will be US$50 000 equivalent of ZiG of the rate of that day.  That is the prayer which everyone out there would want to know so that whatever we do out there with regards to the CDF, we will not have problems with our constituencies.   I thank you so much Mr. Speaker Sir- [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –

THE ACTING SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon. Mutseyami, I think yesterday I was following up that discussion between Members of the House and the Speaker of Parliament.  Let me refer that point of national interest to the Speaker of Parliament.  He will make a response on that one. Thank you.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I move that Order of the day Numbers 1 to 3 be stood over until Order Number 4 has been disposed of. 

         Motion put and agreed to. 

RECOMMITTAL STAGE

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

         Fourth Order read:  Recommittal Stage: Finance (2024) Bill, [H. B. 8A, 2024]

         House in Committee.

RECOMMITTAL STAGE

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

         On new Clause after Clause 16:

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. D. K. MNANGAGWA):  Thank you Mr. Chair.  We have some new proposed clauses and amendments that came from the Senate starting with the new clause that will come in as Section 17, which is the substitution of Section 81 A [Chapter 23:12], which speaks to the route to markets.  The section as it is in the Order Paper:

The Value Added Act [Chapter 23:12] is amended by the repeal of section 81A and the substitution of “81A, Measures to protect value chain integrity and transparency, and to counter unfair competition by informal traders.  In this section, “manufacturer” means a person who transforms raw materials, intermediate products and any other input using various tools, equipment, processes and services to produce finished products or inputs for further processing;

    “non-compliant manufacturer, wholesaler or person, or person”, as the context requires, means a person who is not a registered operator or any registered operator who fails to provide proof of such registration and a valid tax clearance certificate;

    “retail trade” means the sale of any commodity in small quantities for consumption or use by the purchaser, and the expressions “retail transaction”, “retailer” and “retail dealer” shall be construed accordingly;

    “retailer” means any person engaged in the retail trade; “wholesaler” means any person engaged in the wholesale trade, that is to say, the sale of any commodities in large quantities or in bulk to a purchaser who intends to make a profit on the resale of the commodities or to consume them. Subject to this section, no person, other than a manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer who is a registered operator, and who produces proof of registration as such, together with a valid tax clearance certificate, may purchase goods from a manufacturer.

    Subject to this section, a manufacturer shall be required to withhold an amount equal to 5% of the value of each purchase of goods by a non-compliant manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer or person shall remit each amount so withheld to the Commissioner in such manner as the Commissioner may specify.

    Subject to this section, a wholesaler shall be required to with- hold an amount equal to 5% of the value of each purchase of goods by a non-compliant retailer, and shall remit each amount  to the Commissioner in such manner as the Commissioner may specify.

    Notwithstanding subsections (3), (4) and (5), no amount shall be withheld on the supply of the following: milk and bread; building materials; newspapers; airtime and mobile data; textbooks, stationery, furniture, food, detergents and other essentials to schools registered under Ministry responsible for Education; medical essentials and equipment to hospitals and clinics registered under the Ministry responsible for Health; any supplies to Government ministries and departments (excluding Statutory Corporations and State Enterprises).

    Any manufacturer or wholesaler who fails to comply with requirements of this section shall be subject to a penalty of 200% of the amount to be withheld and interest equivalent to the Bank Policy Rate plus 5%.

   The Commissioner may, if satisfied that a failure to withhold or to pay any amount required to be withheld was not due to an intent to evade this section, waive the payment of the whole or part of such penalty or such interest.

    The Minister may by regulations made under section 78 prescribe anything which it is necessary, desirable or expedient to prescribe for the purposes of this section.”

    Mr. Speaker Sir, this is the recommended or proposed amendment inserting a new clause after Clause 16.                             

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I just wanted to bring to your attention that this clause was in the original Bill when it came to this National Assembly.  We debated this clause and the esteemed Minister of Finance Prof. Mthuli Ncube, after hearing representations submitted by Members across the political divide in this House, conceded and agreed to delete this clause from the Bill.  The reasoning and rationale that was advanced by the Members in this House resonated with the Minister of Finance.  I have gone through the Hansard from the Senate and I have no qualms with respect to the process that the Senate can refer matters to the National Assembly but this clause which was removed by the Hon. Minister here, then went on to introduce it in the Senate.  I think that is not a proper thing to do.  I was then going to say…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. MACHINGURA):  Hon. Mushoriwa, can you not mislead the House.  What did you just say the Minister did?

         HON. MUSHORIWA: I said he then reintroduced that clause in the Senate.  

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON :  So, the Senate cannot make decisions on the work that is moved from the National Assembly to Senate.

         HON. MUSHORIWA:  No, I do not think you heard me correctly.  I said the Senate has got the leeway to consider the Bill and can make some changes.  My point of departure is to do with what the Minister of Finance, after having agreed in this House to delete that clause, then went into Senate and there are two things that could have happened.  Either he forgot to delete this clause when he went to Senate or he then decided when he was there that maybe the concession that he made in the National Assembly was not the correct one.  But be that as it may, I want to simply say that on the merits of this issue, it is wrong in my view and it was wrong in the view of the National Assembly then.  Given what is happening at the moment, we have got the budget process for 2025 starting in two weeks.  Very soon, the Minister of Finance will be coming up with a new Finance Bill.  The reason given by Members was that given what is prevailing in the country at the moment, if you are then going to start saying let there be withholding tax of 5% to everyone who is not VAT registered, it will bring in the unintended consequences.  The first thing that we raised was that because of the porousness of our borders, what you are going to see is a lot of smuggling at the expense of our manufacturing companies.

The second issue which is very important which was raised in here, there are other sectors that needed to be considered like for instance, there were bottle stores that buy from Delta and the importation of this clause is to actually put bottlenecks. Because of all those things, it was agreed that the Minister of Finance needed to go back and relook into this. We then agreed that one or two months will not kill the fiscus and when they think through, they would come up with a proper position.

To that extent, I would like to urge this august House, with all due respect to our esteemed colleagues in the Senate that this National Assembly should reject this clause as brought by the Hon. Minister so that we go back to the status quo that we agreed when the Bill came to the National Assembly.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: When we debated this in this House last time, we raised some inconsistencies with the Bill which actually led to the Minister to concede to delete the clause. Let me repeat those because it is important for the benefit of the House - “no person is allowed to buy from a manufacturer or wholesaler without a (1) valid tax clearance (2), without proof that you are registered for VAT. If you do not have those things, the manufacturer will add 5% to the cost of goods that you want to buy from Him as withholding tax

What is the implication Mr. Speaker? – The implication is that in the same Finance Bill, we approved US$300 for presumptive tax for bottle stores dealer for example. The bottle store is registered for presumptive tax because it does not keep proper books of accounts and that is difficult to trace his income. So, when the bottle store dealer is up to date with his presumptive tax and has got a valid tax clearance but because the bottle store is not registered for VAT and only for presumptive tax, this dealer is excluded from purchasing from the manufacturer or wholesaler. This is absolutely discriminative.

The reason why I said, including this clause would be inconsistent with what we would have approved in the same Finance Bill, this Bill had given some exclusions to say the supplier of bread and airtime are exempted from this provision, which means if you want to buy bread from Bakers Inn manufacturer, if you are just a natural person, this clause does not affect me when I am buying bread and airtime from Econet. When I am buying newspapers, I am exempted from the requirement of valid tax clearance, I am exempted from the requirement of VAT and I am also exempted from the 5% withholding tax. What does that mean? We have other sectors of the economy that are compliant in their presumptive categories which are compliant have a tax clearance.  They are not legally bound to register for VAT. So, why are we discriminating against our own people?

We also raised that, if we say the route market along the value chain, you are saying only the retailer must buy from the wholesaler and me as a juristic person, I should buy from the retailer or else I buy from the manufacturer but pay 5% withholding tax. What does it mean? It means, I as a natural person, when I am going to the market, I will make sure that I increase and push over the 5% cost of withholding tax to our consumers. The implication is that it affects our consumers in general. What prejudice has been suffered by the Ministry to come to this arrangement? - I do not see the prejudice?

There was a mistake in the numbering of subsection (5) of the clause. Subsection (5) of the clause says, notwithstanding subsections (3), (4), and (5), no amount shall be withheld in the supply of the following;  - it means this clause is excluding subsection (2) which gives authority to deny anyone without a tax clearance and a VAT number from purchasing from the wholesaler. I think it is a typing error that needs to be looked at because it must read ‘notwithstanding anything from subsections (2), (3) and (4) and not (3), (4) and (5)’. That is my contribution for now. I thank you.

HON. DR. MUTODI: I want to differ from those who have spoken before me on this subject. I think it is of noble cause that the Minister reintroduce this clause although he may have conceded to remove it in the Lower House. The clause to maintain a 5% presumptive tax to those without VAT clearance is a robust move. This is because the informal traders or informal trading in this country has ballooned beyond imaginable levels. The transactions in the informal sector are not only difficult to trace but they are actually part of huge transactions that are taking place on a daily basis in the economy.

Whilst the Minister looks at more effective ways to effect tax measures, the 5% presumptive tax must apply. Those who have spoken earlier do not give any alternative as to how informal traders can contribute to tax yet our view as Members of Parliament and given the economic situation, is that  Government must be accorded a chance to increase its tax base to allow it to do more seeing that informal trading is occupying more than 60% of our business. It is of economic sense that we maintain 5% presumptive tax and cure the mischief of tax evasion by informal traders. I thank you.

         HON. HWENDE: I think most of the issues have already been dealt with by my colleagues this side.  I want to zero in on the issue of compliance. I think you will recall that ZIMRA issued a Public Notice No. 11 of 2024 and tried to register players in the informal sector. If you look at the compliance levels since the time that they issued the notice, only 10% have managed to register for VAT. This shows what Hon. Mushoriwa has been saying that this policy needs more time since we are going to come up with a Finance Bill in two or three months’ time. It needs the Ministry to relook and rethink because there is no point in putting measures that are not going to yield anything because the compliance as you can see, for the past six or so months, only 10% has complied. It is difficult to ensure that there is compliance in the informal sector.

         The obvious result will just be that the retailers are going to increase their prices by 5% because they are simply going to pass on this withholding tax to the consumers. We know the situation already in the market.  If you go to the supermarkets today, you will see that our local products are already struggling because of the influx of the foreign products.  For example, if you go to OK Supermarket today, the 2 litres of coca cola that is supposed to be sold for two dollars something, is already at $4.00.  They cannot compete with the cheap coca cola that is coming from Zambia.  This situation is going to be worse because the imports that are going to come from Zambia or South Africa, people are going to simply just resort to imports.  The net effect is that we are going to destroy the industry that was beginning to pick up due to the measures that were put in place.

         This is the reason why we are opposing this measure.  Assuming that we fail to agree, if you look at the wording, the 5% which is levied, is levied on the full value of the price of the product.  This exceeds the potential loss of value.  What it really means is that the loss that we were going to incur in the VAT is going to be less because this 5% is going to be levied on the total purchase price.  So, if you are going to fail to agree, may be the correct wording should be that the levy should be calculated on the VAT amount only as a very last resort, but I do not think you are going to reach there.  As this House decided already, we need the Minister to get more time so that we do not affect the small traders that are contributing to this economy.  I thank you.

         HON. CHIDUWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I would want to draw the House back to one of the assignments that we gave the Hon. Minister of Finance.  One such assignment was, when we say the economy is now too informalised and we would want serious measures to come from Treasury to make sure that the economy is formalised.  Another area where we also implored the Hon. Minister of Finance to work hard was to ensure that we find ways to collect revenue from the informal sector.

         I may also want to bring to the attention of this House – I was also part of the process when some of these measures were put in place.  The Presumptive Tax is not necessarily to raise revenue.  The Presumptive Tax is there to ensure that there is compliance.  Those who do not want to pay the 5% should just register.  If you want to avoid to pay the 5%, this 5% is not across board.  It is only for those who do not want to register for VAT.  So, if you would want to avoid paying the Presumptive Tax of 5%, you register for VAT.  What we are basically looking at here, there is no prejudice.  For those who do not want to pay the 5%, they register for VAT.  We are basically looking at how we ensure that there is compliance.  To ensure that there is compliance; to ensure that there is formalisation, we go for the 5%.

         I am not sure maybe I had gone out, but we did not debate much on this point.  So, I think for us to ensure that there is compliance; to ensure that there is formalisation, I think we need to support the Presumptive Tax of 5% and this will ensure that we lessen on informality. I submit.

         HON. HAMAUSWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity.  My contribution is based on the fact that when we look at the informal sector, we need to have a broader perspective to understand what exactly goes on with informal traders.  When you look at informal traders, you will realise that they act as if somehow, they are in an incubation process. They are trying to become formal.  So, when we then come up with measures that are more inclined towards punishment and they are also zero or limited measures to support the incubation process.  It is like we are killing the seeds that are trying to germinate.  We need now to also ensure that the informal sector grows.  If we then go to informal traders and we say we expect you to have VAT registration, it might be fair to the informal traders.

         Secondly, when you look at these informal traders, they are also being encouraged by the mushrooming of informal settlements.  It will also be inconsistent with other policies or other moves that were declared by the Government.  The Government has said they are going to formalise the informal sector but then if you check where these informal traders will be operating from, they are operating in informal settlements, areas where you cannot see N. Richards; areas where you cannot see OK stores or Choppies.  So, what it means at the end of the day, customers who are in those areas; people who stay kwaBhobho, far after Mabvuku, will not be able to buy goods because they are going to be expensive. 

         Informal traders who operate in those areas, like Hopley will not be able to comply with this new law.  So, this law if I am going to borrow Hon. Hwende’s language that if we are going to fail to agree, there is need to rephrase this whole section.  I would propose, it was better for the Ministry to really consider millions of Zimbabwe who are staying in informal settlement.  These are people who are staying in areas where there is no transportation, no services that are being offered by the Government.  This is where these informal traders are taking advantage.  They are taking a role that is supposed to be taken by the Government.  Actually, we expect more supporting system from the Ministry of Finance.   As I said when I started the debate that I would take them that they are in an incubation process. They need more support than the punishment.  It is my plea Hon. Chairperson, that may we really go with the first decision where the Minister of Finance had proposed to delete this clause and we give time for this clause to be relooked.  We need to rethink how best we can incorporate or encourage the informal sector to pay tax but at the end of the day Hon. Chairperson, if you check those informal traders, they already pay tax when they buy even from the wholesalers, a tax is already deducted.  We must not kill these informal traders because they are growing.  If you go even to Domboshava, those are areas where we have informal settlement.  I am really worried how many people are going to be disadvantaged if we are going to put statistics here.  You will see that we are actually going to disadvantage millions of Zimbabweans.  If you go to Zvazviri, to Chitange, you will not find those big supermarkets whom you will say they will buy directly from the wholesalers.  This is where you find traders as small as Hon. Nyabani who will be trading there.  You cannot go to those areas infested with landmines and you expect to find OK shops to be in those areas.

         Hon. Chairperson, these are my submissions to say if this law is going to sail through, it cannot be applied as if Zimbabwe is a homogeneous area with homogenous settlements.  We need to consider seriously if we are a Government that listens to the people.  This is what the people we represent are saying.  This law cannot be applied as it is.  I submit Mr. Speaker Sir.

         Lastly, if you also check in the same Finance Bill, informal traders are being charged 20% when they bring their goods.  What it means is that those who will fail, not because they do not want to pay the VAT clearance but they do not have the capacity, they are not being capacitated by the same Government -  So the only way for them to continue surviving is to go outside the country but again when they go outside the country, the taxman will be waiting for them at the border to charge 20%.  What it means is that we are chasing the down-trodden.  We are going after the poorest people of our country.  This is not good and it does not give a good picture to our Government.  We need to have time, I do not think there is prejudice if we give time. If the Minister concedes to have more time especially that we are starting budget consultations next week, there is no rush to sign a bad law and we say we are a Government that listens to the people.  I really plead with the Hon. Minister of Finance to delete this and suspend this clause and to bring it maybe when we debate the 2025 Budget.  It will not be good for all of us, it will not be good for all the people of Zimbabwe to pass such a law.  Thank you, Hon. Chairperson. 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Is there any further debate without repeating what other Members have said.  I give you the floor Hon. Mukomberi, can you proceed.

         HON. MUKOMBERI:  Thank you Hon. Chairperson for the opportunity.  I just want to add few words pertaining to this Bill supporting that the 5% presumptive tax should be maintained to non-compliant traders.  The reason is, if you can consider the percentage of VAT, it is 14.5% if I am not mistaken and also considering 5% presumptive tax,  Hon. Chairperson, 5% is lower than 14.5% by a big margin, to indicate that this is a percentage that should be contributed by those informal traders because of their size.  What it implies is that the measure is to make sure that every trader contributes to the national fiscus.  No economy can grow without raising income from the tax contributions – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – If I can define a tax, it is simply a compulsory distribution by the subjects of the State to the Government so as to enable that Government meet its public obligations. What are the public obligations – it is to provide all what we need the Government to provide.  This is only done through the contributions from the subjects of that Government.  It implies that as the majority of our traders in Zimbabwe are from the informal sector, it is very pertinent that they also contribute through that 5% that is being withheld by manufacturers to make sure that they also contribute and be remitted to ZIMRA.

         HON. DHLIWAYO:  Thank you Hon. Chairperson for giving me this opportunity to add my voice to the debate in question.  I want to support the proposal by the Senate that was done to the Minister to include this 5% in our Finance Bill.  It will ensure that our informal sector formalises.  Truly, it is high time that our informal sector must be encouraged to formalise considering that I think for many years, the Government has supported the informal sector to the extent that it is now contributing more than 60% of GDP.  So that means the informal sector is now the greater part in our economic activity.  So, it must also contribute something and be encouraged to formalise.

         Hon. Chairperson, I also think this is very innovative given the fact that it has been very difficult to measure the size of the informal sector. By requiring this 5%, we are able to some extent to come up with a methodology to fairly measure the size of the informal sector and find out how much it is contributing to the entire economy.  In short, this is my contribution. 

         *HON. P ZHOU: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, I want to support the issue of 5%. The previous presenter Hon. Hamauswa suggested that the informal sector is still at the incubation stage and should not be left out in the paying of taxes. In as much as I agree with the previous presenter on the informal stage being in the incubation stage, we cannot leave them behind in building Zimbabwe.

         Just like new born babies who cannot sit, eat or do anything by themselves; mothers have the responsibility of teaching their babies to sit firstly by supporting the baby with pillows and blankets – holding he baby to stand without falling, walk the baby holding his or her hands until he or she can run or manage those milestones on their own. This means that in the past, they were not paying anything but right now, we want them to do warm up with taxes being paid.  We are looking forward to Vision 2030 where this country must have reached a certain level.  How can we reach at that level if we are not paying taxes?  Taxes must be paid so that all the developmental projects are done properly.  Right now, everyone here that is all Members of Parliament want Pfumvudza in their different constituencies, how are we going to source those farming inputs?  Hence, we need to pay tax.  We started from 30% going down negotiating, right now we are at 5%, hence we are supporting a small percentage so that, people can learn to pay tax. They must learn to pay tax from 5% so that by 2030, we will be at another level of paying tax and development – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members, I think I know what I am doing here, if you want to contribute, you stand up then I recognise you. Who wants to contribute? Hon. Murombedzi, may you take the floor.

         HON. MUROMBEDZI: Thank you very much Hon. Speaker, I am moving for the permanent deletion of the clause.  Why, because in rural areas, many people rely on informal trading to survive.  So, imposing penalties on non-compliant retailers will discourage the flow of goods into our rural areas, particularly our marginalised communities where formal businesses are scarce.  This proposed withholding tax of 5% could actually cripple the small-scale traders and force them out of business and leaving poor households unable to access affordable goods.  This amendment, while it aimed to promote fairness, could actually exacerbate rural poverty.  My question to the Hon. Minister is whether there is a provision for monitoring the real time impact on rural economies before the full implementation of this Bill.  I so submit.

HON. TIMBURWA:  In alignment with Section 81 (a) of the Value Added Act [Chapter 23:12], it is essential to emphasize that one of the critical roles of the Government is to protect the integrity of the value chain across any market or industry. The introduction of the 5% withholding tax on purchases made by non-compliant retailers serves this very purpose, as it ensures fair competition and transparency within the market.

 

Let me provide an illustration: imagine if every individual with a car were allowed to bypass all service stations and directly purchase fuel from NOIC (National Oil Infrastructure Company). In such a scenario, we would effectively destroy the business model of all the service stations that are part of the fuel supply chain, leading to a loss of employment and weakening the entire value chain. Similarly, if informal traders or non-compliant retailers* were allowed to operate without contributing to the tax system, it would undermine the entire retail industry by promoting unfair competition, eroding the foundations of formal businesses that are compliant and creating jobs.

 

This 5% withholding tax ensures that every player within the value chain adheres to taxation principles, contributing to the overall cost of doing business and promoting accountability. Moreover, this tax is vital for the Government to generate revenue needed for service delivery and the provision of essential infrastructure. By ensuring the value chain's protection, the Government is supporting sustainable employment, fair competition, and the formalization of business activities, which are fundamental for economic growth and the delivery of basic services that the citizens require.

 

Thus, I firmly believe that this measure is essential in promoting economic transparency and strengthening the value chain, and as such, it should be supported.

*HON. KANGAUSARU:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  I agree that the 5% tax should be levied.  There is need for the informal sector to be involved in the collection of tax and everyone must be involved in paying tax.  Even the Bible says give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar so, it is lawful for everyone to pay tax.  If every individual in informal trade is able to contribute to the fiscal, it will help with the growth of the country.  Currently, the country is under sanctions but we are the custodians of the country and it is only the custodians who can build their own country by paying tax.  Nyika inovakwa nevene vayo.  So, it is imperative for the people to make sure that they pay tax so that other developmental projects can happen in the country, developments like road rehabilitation, building of roads and healthcare centres among others.  I thank you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Member, I want to thank you very much for your debate but if we follow what the Hon. Speaker said yesterday, we need to stick to one language, we should do that because that is what should happen.

HON. BAJILA:  Thank you so much Mr. Speaker.  I wish to add my voice to this debate.  By starting from where we left last week, in my view, with respect to the informal sector, we had taken a route to Ninevah, but we seem to be off ramping to Tarshish and it might be necessary for us to consider going back.  The 5% withholding tax being proposed, to start with, we need to ask ourselves why these informal traders are perpetually in the informal sector and not seeking to register and normalise.  The reason is simple.  In order for you to be able to operate a supermarket lawfully in Zimbabwe, there are 25 permits that you need.  It is also difficult for our people to go through the licencing until they get all the 25 permits.  We need to focus on making it easy for our people to officialise and to become part of the formal sector rather than to keep on saying if you do not want to be part of the formal sector or if it is difficult for you to be in the formal sector, we will keep whipping and beating you.  This direction that we are taking will affect the local manufacturer because as Hon. Timburwa was saying, in the oil sector, it is difficult for someone to say if I cannot get oil from the local filling stations and I cannot get oil from NOIC, let me go and get my oil in Mozambique.  As an individual, it is difficult to do so.  But if it is sugar, you can do that because our borders allow you to do that.  It is possible for one to go and get soap, and cooking oil outside.  At the end of the day, the local manufacturer will suffer because the informal sector will go and buy outside the country if they find it difficult to buy locally.  So, the manufacturer will lose their client base that they were having which was in the informal sector.  This tax is anti-manufacturer and anti-informal trader.  Half the times, we come here to discuss challenges that we face with respect to our currency but the chief culprits are the wholesalers and retailers who we are coming here to defend.  I am not sure why we have to take this direction without being wholesome in terms of the issues that affect our economy.  

I conclude by saying, letting us give our retailer, manufacturer and informal trader one more year and see what happens at the end of that one more year because the times we are getting into economically, if we start chasing after people, we are the ones who will cry again.  We can see what our economy is doing and the way we are moving back and forth with this kind of tax means we are going to chase goods out of shops and it is us again who are going to be seen as deliberately fighting our people.  I thank you.

*HON. MUNEMO:  Thank you Hon. Speaker.  I want to reiterate the President, Dr. E. D. Mnangagwa’s words that it is the locals who will build and develop Zimbabwe.  If we do not do that, no-one is going to build the country for us.  As we sit here in this august House, we expect a lot from Government.  If we do not allow Government to collect tax from the people, there is no Government company making a profit but Government still has to collect taxes.  If we stop Government from collecting taxes yet we expect to benefit from Government and also get service delivery, we will not be going anywhere.  We want to benefit from livestock but we do not want to feed the livestock.  We are driving good cars which the government got money from taxes, but we keep on denying the government to collect the revenue, meaning there is a confusion within us. It is you and me who should work for the growth of our economy – let us build a culture of paying tax to the government so as to develop as a country. We had ample time in the informal sector, it is high time we should grow and formalize to realise economic growth through the payment of taxes to our government. We might want our salaries to be raised but without revenue collection, it is impossible. I submit.

         *HON. HWENDE: People are just repeating the same things. These people were supporting on Thursday evening, now they come back singing a different song. We cannot continue talking about the same thing.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Hwende, you are out of order, please take your seat. - [HON. MEMBERS - Inaudible interjections].

+HON. R. MPOFU: Thank you Hon. Speaker. Sir, for giving me this opportunity. I also support the 5%. Hon. Speaker, what kind of a nation will we be if we are a nation without laws? Secondly, the 5% is good for the development of the country because when we say that there are sanctions, this 5% will go a long way in supporting our Government and it would ensure that Government is financed for different projects. Those who are against the idea are doing so, so that people will despise Zimbabwe when we fail to do what was expected to do.

As a nation, let us work together, let us see what can benefit Zimbabwe and let us support that. We need to understand that the source of revenue for Government is through taxes. We need to agree as an august House that we are going to develop our country. The President normally says the country is built and developed by its own people and we are the owners of Zimbabwe. It does not matter which party, but this is our country and the country of our ancestors. We cannot sabotage our own country but we need to work hard so that our country would thrive. I support the 5%. I thank you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, Order, Hon. Members! I think now we are having repetitions. If the House will allow me, I will proceed to request the Minister to take the flow and make a response to your debate.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: On a point of clarity Mr. Speaker. Are we going to be allowed for further debate after the Minister has given the response? It is very important; we do not want to then appear ….

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON Let us give the Minister the chance to respond and if there is any debate that comes out of his responses, we will certainly let you debate.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. D .K MNANGAGWA): I will try to go to the issues raised by the order in which they were raised - starting with the submission that came from Hon. Mushoriwa, who seem to suggest that it is a sneaking back of the same Clause. I am advised that we run a bicameral system and the Senate has seen it fit to tackle the issues of informalisation by bringing in this Clause. It is their prerogative and this is what we have done Mr. Chairman. We are simply highlighting issues which I think have been misunderstood, judging from some of the submissions that came.

I can give the intention and the principles of this Clause before I respond to some of the issues because I think there is some misunderstanding and what this Clause seeks to achieve. When we talk about route to market and trying to bring sanity and protect the sanctity of the market as articulated by Hon. Timburwa, we are trying to protect the value chain. We have the manufacturer at the apex, let us take in the industry of cooking oil. Below the manufacturer, you have wholesalers, I would say slightly below wholesalers or maybe adjacent to wholesalers, you have retailers and below the retailers you have informal traders, tuck-shops and the whole host of other businesses, whether they are home industry or home shops.

What this Clause seeks to do is to make sure that along that value chain, we have maximised the revenue collection, bringing sanity into the industry and protecting the same industry. What it seeks to do as your wholesalers and retailers - ideally because they are pushing volumes should register for VAT, should have a VAT Certificate and henceforth, should be able to access your manufacturers. Those who decide that they want to be informal have the option of one of two things. You either go to the manufacturer non-compliant and pay 5% or you go to your wholesaler which is N. Richards, Metro-Peech or retailers and then you can go on and sell further. This is what a functioning value chain is supposed to look like and to be able to reach that point, you need to have the necessary mechanisms in place. I will respond to the issues that were raised, which were of concern that might have come from maybe a misunderstanding of what we seek to achieve by introducing the Finance Bill.

Hon. Mushoriwa also brings about the points that there might be issues of smuggling, which again I think could be separate from the value chain issue.  We are talking about enforcement.  The issue of smuggling is indeed something that is bedeviling our fiscus and us as a country in general.  So, it is something that we have made sure, through the purchase of drones, joint task forces and few measures, some which we may be bringing back again in other inserted clauses, to try and make sure that we have dealt with this.

         There is a submission that came from Hon. Madzivanyika, who as a former ZIMRA employee, I would have hoped would be able to educate the House further on tax issues but seems to be confusing the House further on what we are trying to achieve by failing to draw a parallel between VAT systems and presumptive tax.  When we talk about presumptive tax, this is addressing compliance by small businesses that may be for the sake of not having an accountant or may be not having the expertise, have decided not to have books of accounts in place.  What we do as Treasury, what ZIMRA does is that it presumes what sort of profits you would have made in your barber shop or beauty parlor assigns a presumptive tax to that.  This again is to encourage formalisation of businesses and a tax paying culture, if one then believes that this presumptive tax is, actually more than they would have been paying then they should simply register for tax and pay through the normal way where you book in your income from your business, deduct the expenses, then compute your profit.  From that profit, you give a certain percentage to ZIMRA.  This is how the tax system works. 

You are either paying tax through the conventional way of submitting your returns; how much you have made, how much you have spent and what is your profit percentage.  Or if you do not have books that are in order, you pay a presumptive tax.  These are two different systems. We do not want to confuse informality as presumptive tax.  Once you pay a presumptive tax, you are formalized and also accounted into the tax net.

         Let me give an example of a bottle store owner who is paying a presumptive tax, henceforth is formal but he does not have a VAT clearance certificate.  This bottle store owner wants to, for example, to purchase a large load of beer and beverages to service the store.  In terms of the VAT rules and regulations, once you are trading beyond a certain threshold, you should register for VAT and also charge VAT. Henceforth, this person, regardless of whether they are in the rural areas or in town or in the township or wherever you are, as long as you are trading beyond certain volumes, beyond a certain threshold, you should register for tax.  It is not geographical; it is a matter of the quantum which the business is trading.  Henceforth, these are crafted in a manner to make sure that it caters for big businesses.  Your smaller businesses who may  not be pushing as much volumes should not go to the manufacturer, Delta for example, supplies wholesalers and retailers.  This is the protection of the value chain.

         He mentioned that there are other sectors that have been tax compliant but they are not registered for VAT.  This context, I would challenge the Hon. Member to give me an example of any trader or retailer who is selling vatable products; buying something from a manufacturer that is not vatable.  I think his argument does not arise.  When you are buying a product from a manufacturer, it is vatable, henceforth you should be paying for VAT.  I would like that we do not confuse the House on some of these issues. 

He mentioned that the 5% is passed to the consumers.  This 5% withholding tax has been designed to ensure that apart from revenue collection, we are evening out the value chain space.  When a retailer or wholesaler goes and buy from a manufacturer, they are paying their VAT but at the end of the value chain, they claim that input VAT yet we have someone who can simply just go to the manufacturer, not pay anything, go in front of a retail store or  a wholesaler and sell the same goods for much less.  This is the madness within the ecosystem that we are trying to uproot but make sure that everybody continues to do a successful business. 

I will speak to the incubation of entrepreneurs as raised by some of the Hon. Members.  He mentioned the issue of numbering, I agree.  I think it should be sub-sections 2, 3, and 4.  I think the team will take a look at those clauses.

         Hon. Mutodi came in support of taxing the non-compliance through the 5% withholding tax.  I would like to thank you for that point.  Hon. Hwende raised issues of compliance, I think he said that there is a notice to register informal traders and only 10% had registered.  Henceforth, he indicated that this route to market strategy that we are trying to take does not work.  Let us however take time to study this and see how best we can put it in 2025 budget.  On the contrary, I would like to think that this is the opportune time to have this clause within the Bill so that when we are discussing the 2025 budget, we know what is working and what is not working.  We have these two months to know, review, see what is working and what is not working.  So, this is actually the right time to bring in these clauses so that come November, December, when we are discussing the Bill for 2025, we have a reference point.  We cannot be presumptuous on what works and what does not work without trying, especially when it comes to the fight against informalisation.  Again, this is augmented by the argument that came from Hon. Chiduwa that our economy needs to be formalised.  There is no other way to formalise the economy but making sure that everybody falls within the tax system.  This is how we formalise our economy.  The results will be reviewed in the next budget cycle.  So, we implement, we have two or there months to assess.  If it is not working, we come back, we assess and then we fine-tune and go on but we cannot review and look at results of something that has been put on hold.   There is no prejudice to anyone except to those who want to prejudice against the merit of taking the decision to formalise.

         Coming back to Hon. Hamauswa who suggests that paying tax is a punishment, which I would say it is a sneaky way to try, to paintiing this Bill to be anti-poor when on the contrary it is trying to make sure that we bring sanity within our financial ecosystem, which indeed becomes pro-poor in that regard.  Retailers in informal settlements or the geography of where you are selling does not preclude you from formalising your business.  If you are selling in Hopley, you are able to get your tax clearance, whether online or access it at the ZIMRA offices.  If you want to buy from the manufacturer, directly then you have to to pay the 5%, if you want to go to the wholesaler, to the retailer, that is still open.  You can go there and sell at your informal set-up in any jurisdiction.  So, this is not trying to disrupt business.  It is not trying to pass any cost to the poor.  If anything, it is just recalibration of how our value chain should be structured.

         An argument came in that there is a 20% charge for informal traders at the border and indeed, Hon. Hamauswa argued that this actually augments the point of protecting the manufacturers from imports.  The argument that came is that if you make it expensive for your informal sector from sourcing goods from local manufacturers is then invalid. This is why that 20% was put in place.  It only applies to informal traders, informal traders who bring in value of above US$1 000 are charged an extra 20%.  This makes sure that any additional cost, whether it is VAT that might have been put on our manufactured goods, is weighed out by this punitive 20% that they would have to pay.  I am sure if your informal traders are bringing in imports, paying in an additional 20% and still being able to sell them cheaper than our locally manufactured goods, then I would think that our manufactures need to relook at their cost structure.  They need to look at that and see how best they can address their competitiveness with some of these goods in the region.

         Hon. Mukomberi alluded to the fact that everybody needs to contribute and this is the impetus of what we are trying to do.  Hon. Hamauswa was speaking to the 5% incubation and how we assist an incubating business, that charging 5% to an incubating business is as killing it.   The only way a business can grow is if it is actually formalised to a point where they can borrow money to grow, they can access credit back again from their suppliers.  This impetus for them to formalise is part of the incubation process.  I would not say urging formalisation is killing entrepreneurs but on the contrary, it is allowing them to grow to the scale that they should.  One cannot continue to operate on underground economy and expect to grow except some of the people who are abusing this flawed route to market.  What you have right now is informal traders claiming to be formal traders who go directly to the manufacturers, get cooking oil down-town onto the tuck shops.  One would think that a tuck shop is a two square metre space, but we have tuck-shops that are warehouses half the size of this room.  That person is operating informally but has a very large formal space pushing products at volumes that make him or her a millionaire but operating informally. This is what we are trying to cure. 

         Hon. Murombedzi, I think she was crying that this will exacerbate poverty in the rural areas. This is very far from the truth.  Again, this is simply addressing the route to market.  There is no one who has been precluded from purchasing whatever goods that they are trading in, from retailers and from wholesalers.  What we are simply saying is, if you want to go to the apex of the value chain, you need to be formalised.  If you want to access the manufacturers, make sure you have got the VAT clearance certificate and you are registered for VAT.  The route to market is being established and it is not trying to squeeze people out.

Again, we had submissions from Hon. Kangausaru stating that everybody should taxed to contribute to the fiscus, which is what we then redistribute to the people of Zimbabwe. 

Hon. Bajila brought up some statistics which I am not sure if they are true or not.  He said that the 25 permits that he requires to formalise - I am not sure which particular industry he referred to but if it is for tax compliance, I can assure you, all you need is an address and a bank account and ZIMRA will give you BP number.  It will give you your VAT number, VAT registration, that is all you need. You do not need 25 permits to formalise with ZIMRA.  I submit Hon. Chairperson.

*HON. HAMAUSWA:  Thank you Hon. Chairperson.  My debate emanates from the response that was given by the Hon. Minister.  He said presumption means presume or to assume that informal traders do not have bookkeepers who do bookkeeping for them.  I wanted to bring in a different school of thought saying that may be this clause could wait until informal traders can be assisted to have tax clearance certificates when they have a database of informal traders because Hon. Chair, it seems easy to get a tax clearance from ZIMRA but it is not easy…

HON. DHLIWAYO:  On a point of order Hon. Chairperson.  I think the Hon. Member is just repeating what has been said already.  So, I propose that we divide the House and move forward, otherwise all these are repetitions.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Hamauswa, just wind up your debate.

*HON. HAMAUSWA:  Thank you for protecting me Hon. Chairperson.  The issue is not repetition but I was saying that there should be a deliberate plan because this Ministry is concentrating on the finance aspect. The investment promotion aspect is not being looked at in terms of assisting those who are facing challenges, yet Government is expected to assist these people in the informal traders.  This is the issue, if it does not succeed, I would concur with Hon. Dhliwayo that it is important to divide the House.  Hon. Chairperson, if this clause passes, I do not want my name to be on the other side, but I want my name to be on the good side because we do not want to take advantage of people. 

*HON. MUREYANI:  I want to thank the Hon. Minister for the response regarding the issue of tax, explaining presumptive tax.  We understood, however the point that 5% is a bit high, we are encouraging informal traders but is it not better to cut from 5% to 2%?  I thank you. 

HON. TSVANGIRAI:  Thank you very much Hon. Chairperson.  I completely comprehend the purposes of this proposed presumptive tax, which is primarily to formalise the informal and safeguard the value chain.  However, Hon. Chairperson, I totally disagree with this 5% presumptive tax because I think primarily, any Government should be able to shield its citizens from high costs of living.  The 5% presumptive tax would unfairly increase the cost of products and services for our people, particularly the poor within the poor.  Already our people are faced with the effects of drought.  Food security Mr. Chairman is NDS1’s aim and I do not think increasing taxes would actually protect our people from food security…

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): On a point of order Mr. Chairperson.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Point of Order Hon. Minister.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, rules do not allow repetition.  This has been said and we are simply repeating. Hon. Chair, everything that is being said now from what Hon. Hamauswa said and from what the other Hon. Members said and what they are saying has been said and it is on record in the Hansard.  If there are no new ideas that are being proffered, I respectfully submit Hon. Chair that we proceed.  I thank you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, thank you, we are doing that.  The reason why I allowed them to proceed is because Hon. Hamauswa was proposing to the Minister that they train the informal traders and the other Hon. Member was saying the 5% is too high and why not make it 2%.  Then the last Hon. Member who was debating, what did you say? He has finished.  Hon. Members, I think I am giving the Minister the last round then I proceed.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: Mr. Chair, I want to refer you to Sub Section 5 of the Clause.  I was listening to the Hon. Minister when he was highlighting the rationale behind introducing this route to market proposal.  It is reasonable however, my concern all along is not about informalisation or what.  I was talking about people who are formal, but those people, for example, did not reach threshold for VAT registration or if they reach, they are still small to warrant VAT registration.  Look at Sub Section 5 Hon. Chair. Sub section 5 is giving exemptions to say the 5% I heard many people saying 5% presumptive, is not presumptive tax Hon. Chair.   Let me put it on record.  It is 5% withholding tax that must be clear and this 5% withholding tax is not being charged to people who are not compliant.  It is being charged to people who are already compliant, who have got a valid tax clearance but what they do not have is a VAT certificate Hon. Chair.  So, I think that should be clear to Hon. Members here.

I want to know the thinking process behind the exemptions to say the 5% withholding tax is not applicable to products like milk and bread.  This is the thinking that I had all along.  What was the thinking process that actually made the Hon. Minister to come to a conclusion that building materials are exempt from the 5%?  I was coming then to say Hon. Chair, we have got a rural shop or a shop in the high-density suburb in Mufakose, which does not buy a lot from Delta but it is assisting the communities of our society.  Can we then add them as exemptions because my concern is the discriminative effect of this provision?  It actually discriminates people who want to grow.  Because our focus should not be always on taxes, but should also be on the growth of these businesses.  I am saying can we then add if the Minister is saying we want to protect the value chain, can we then add to the exemptions other people such as rural shops, for example, Chikwalakwala, in Rushinga, a shop which is on the side of the road.  When are these laws going to be applied?  Hon. Chair, it is going to be applied without any recourse because the authority is going to apply the law as it is.  It will not then check whether a shop in Rushinga is worth paying this amount.  Thank you Hon. Chair, look at the VAT registration, it says if you sell goods valued at $68 per day and if you get $68, you are now liable for VAT registration.  If you do your calculations you say the normal value required is 25 000 for you to say your sales per year are 25 000, then you are liable for VAT registration.  What then it means Hon. Chair is that a shop in Rushinga or in Mushumbi like I have already said, make their vatable sales to the tune of $68, those companies automatically at law are supposed to register for VAT and therefore, it is very operationally sustainable Hon. Chair to say those small little shops are supposed to pay VAT and this process.  Is it easy to comply for compliance case cost?  Will ZIMRA be able to do all these things?  In my view it is not correct.  I was just saying if the Minister is genuine about protecting those big companies from informal activity, can he then at least include other businesses, especially the rural business and other high density small business as part of exemptions?  I thank you.

         *THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. D.K MNANGAGWA):  Thank you Hon. Chair.  I am going to start by the question that was posed by Hon. Hamauswa saying that presumption means assumption, when predicting, it can either be a lower margin or a higher margin.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Hamauswa, the Minister is responding and you are looking at your gadget.  Please listen to the Minister.

         *HON. D.K MNANGAGWA:  I am going to also address the question posed by Hon. Mureyani when it is more than what you are earning then you need to register with ZIMRA so that ZIMRA will see what you are earning.  If you feel the money is too much, you show that evidence then you pay what is in tandem with what you are earning.  If one feels that the presumptions in these presumptive taxes are too much for a business, then formalise your books, get your accountants, register for your VAT, submit your tax returns and pay lower tax.  Indeed, you might actually be paying higher presumptive tax than you would be if you are paying the normal income tax. So, one has to weigh out their business, but options are there to cater for everyone.

         The submission that comes from Hon. Tsvangirai, he said 5%will increase the cost of products.  I am not sure how that will happen.  All it will do is it will eat into the profits of those informal traders who are selling their goods from fronts of formal businesses.  That is all that it will do.  We are trying to address the route to market and this will answer the question coming from Hon. Madzivanyika. 

         Mr. Chair, this has more to do with the route to market than to deal with taxation.  What the 55 is doing is bringing in a figure that will somewhat be a disincentive for someone to break that route to market.  When we talk about milk, bread or building materials and newspapers, please do not look to the taxation aspect but the route to market.  A newspaper needs to move directly from where it is manufactured to the person.  It is that simple.  We are trying to address the issue to do with route to market.  So, all these exemptions will have to do with route to market.  Your schools, for example, may not be registered retailers or wholesalers, but would need to buy text books, this is why we have these exemptions similar to medical essentials and the supplies to Government ministries. We are addressing a route to market challenge so that we can formalise the informal and not from a taxation aspect. We are not looking at it in a geographical manner. A shop in Rushinga can still make as much money as a shop in Harare. This issue is not dealing with taxation issues but route to market. I do move that we leave the clause as is proposed by Senate to be part of the Bill.

         Amendment to new Clause 17 put and agreed to.

         New Clause 17, as amended, put and agreed to.

         On new Clause 19:

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. D. K. MNANGAGWA): As proposed by the Senate that a new clause be inserted after Clause 18, it will be Clause 19, Amendment of Section 234 of  [Chapter 23:02] which reads “ Section 234 Goods in Transit of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] as amended  by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2) (a), the owner of any fuel being removed in transit shall at the port of entry of the fuel provisionally pay the duty and levies thereon as if it was not being removed in transit. Such provisional payment of duty and levies shall be reimbursed to the owner of the fuel upon the fuel being acquitted at the port of exit provided that this subsection does not apply to an owner of any fuel being removed in transit who uplifts the fuel from NOIC or any successor to that entity for other procurement entity prescribed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette at the Msasa, Mabvuku and Feruka depot of NOIC.”

I move that this clause be inserted to be part of the Bill as proposed by the Senate.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: We are entitled to debate and let me debate. I want to address Clause 2 (a) of the amendment. This clause is saying if you pay duty at the port of entry, we just refund you duty at the port of exit. That is what it says. Look at what is happening right now as we debate this Bill here. What is happening right now is that when you bring your fuel at the border post, the agent’s bond is debited by an equivalent of US$20 000 for petrol as duty.

Secondly, the importer pays cash equivalent to US$20 000 as they go to Chirundu. At Chirundu, the agent is not reimbursed his USD20 000 and the importer is not reimbursed his USD20 000. The importer is going to be reimbursed when you arrive in DRC. He must come back from DRC with a proof of delivery to say that I have delivered fuel at DRC here is the proof of delivery, can you then give me my money. At that point, ZIMRA is going to refund the USD20 000 to the importer from the agent’s bond.

There are two issues that arise. The first issue is that, what is happening on the ground is consistent with this proposed Bill. Secondly, why do we then want that company to go and get proof of delivery in another country? I think in honest assessment, it is a violation of the sovereignty of other countries. The proviso in the clause says if you import fuel via pipeline to Zimbabwe, that is to Mabvuku or NOIC – let me put things into perspective. You are a Zambian national and you want to import fuel from Beira to Zambia…

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON Z. ZIYAMBI):  I want the Hon. Member to refer where it says you must bring proof that you have delivered in the country where the fuel is going. Can you read?

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I am referring to what is happening now in practice as compared to what is in the Bill.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Sorry. We are debating what is in the Bill and not what is in your head or what is being practised by someone. We are debating what is in the Bill. Debate what is in the Bill and make reference to that so that we will be able to respond to you.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Madzivanyika, stick to the Bill. The Bill proposes to introduce a tax and you are telling this House that it is already happening.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: I was interrupted by the Hon Minister and it is accepted. What is the purpose of Parliament then, when we propose a Bill but we operationalise it before it has been passed by Parliament? That is where I was going. I want the Hon Minister to assist.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  General debate is allowed not at the Committee Stage. At the Committee Stage, you do not do general debate. You debate the clause that is before the House. The Hon. Member must debate what is being proposed and not what is happening there. That is not the debate that is required at this stage. We must stick to the rules of procedure.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA: There is no divorce during practice and what is happening with this Bill. Let me go to the proviso – the proviso restricts importers of fuel who use the pipeline even if they are transiting the fuel and exempt it from payment of duty at the port of entry and refunding at the port of exit. The question that comes from the generality of the people is why. There has been an allegation to the effect that who owns NOIC and why is the fuel being exempted.  Let me put this into perspective, if a company or person from DRC for example wants to import from Beira and then put the fuel under the Feruka pipeline to Zimbabwe, what then happens is that person is not entitled to pay duty at the point of entry.  What does it mean, it means the allegation was that Feruka pipeline or NOIC wants to force all international companies to use its own pipeline for a particular gain at the detriment of their rights?  That is my submission, can that fuel which comes through the pipeline face the same fate and it happened with the fuel that is being used?  I think in the interest of fairness, this proviso is not sustainable.  If we allow it to pass the first part, we want to do it in the interest of fairness.  I thank you.

         HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair.  I think this Clause just like the predecessor Clause, was one Clause that the Hon. Minister had conceded.  I have however, understood the import of having this Clause coming back, primarily because of the rampant abuse of the importation of fuel where vehicles are discarding the fuel within Zimbabwe instead of having it transit to the other countries that they are supposed to go.  My question that I want the Hon. Minister to answer is what happens to someone that says I am buying the fuel from NOIC and I want to send it to DRC.  Between Mabvuku and Chinhoyi, the person then leaves it and then puts water or something around that.  Is there a mechanism to stop such practice?

         THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION (HON. D. K. MNANGAGWA): Let me start by addressing the issue brought by Hon. Madzivanyika.  I think in his first submission, he sort of favours the point that there is actually no prejudice, there is no tax that is being imposed.  I think he somewhat also alludes that it is a practice that is somewhat already happening.  Henceforth, it should give credence to us implementing the same measures to safeguard this smuggling scourge that is going on, within our country.  I think, again like the previous Clause, this one is to do with the smuggling of fuel.  We need to come up with measures on how best we can deal with the smuggling of fuel which has been happening through the truckers, border to border, will then somehow dump the fuel, refill their trucks with whether it is water, I do not know how it happens, but there is some leakage along the way.

         The intelligence and the studies that have been done have shown that there are certain routes where this dumping is prevalent between the borders and having the pipeline in the middle will cut down the surveillance time and will reduce the scourge of smuggling.  As we have proposed earlier on, when you are trying to deal with a social ill and you come up with a measure of implementation and enforcement, especially at a time when you are coming close to a review, I think that it is an opportune time for us to actually expediently have this operational.  Then within three months, actually have the figures and say we had this transiting fuel duty process that we passed as Parliament in the last two months of the year.  What are the results viz-a-vis, the first nine months of the year?

         What we should not do is sit down and do nothing, while we watch.  We find that the seals are being abused.  There is too much of a human element involved when it comes to tracking seals.  Again, it is an issue that we are trying to address.  We have solutions that might be coming up from our team at the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education.  However, we need to do something and this is the lowest hanging fruit that we can do in our tracking to make sure that it is painful for someone to try and smuggle and get caught, knowing that they will profit, money already paid. 

I think it comes as a disincentive as well.  This is the measure that we are trying to put to dis-incentivise those who are smuggling.  They know that if they are caught on the other side of the border, they have already paid the duty; there is already exposure.  One would try to make sure they avoid such a scenario.  Let us give it a period of assessment and trust that the technical team that was put at the work of studying the routes where the smuggling of the fuel has gotten it right.  This is less likely to happen from the pipeline.  I do not think that it was done in favour of those on the pipeline.  I think those are my submissions to both Honourables. 

         Amendment to new Clause 19, put and agreed to.

         New Clause 19 as amended put and agreed to.

         On Clause 29 now Clause 30.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair.  On the actual Bill, on Clause 29, on the Section on Disclosure of Assets in Financial interest of Members of Parliament, the Senate in the discussion, proposed that, for the purposes of this Section, Standing Orders shall make provision for, between line 25 and 35, where it says, to the extent to which the asset disclosure requirement shall apply to spouses and children and other dependent or non-dependent family members and business or non-business associates. 

         So, the Senate proposed that we remove non-dependent  family members and we remove also non-business associates because these are too distant.  So, the proposal was that we amend on this section and the next section, which is Clause 30 again on page 23 but we have got to get to.  So, we have to put them separately.  I propose that we deal with this one first.  It is a straight forward one where we do not want to encumber members to look for distant relatives to say what wealth do you have for the purposes of declaration?  I think the Senate observed that this was not necessary and it was agreed that it be referred for consideration.  I submit.

         Amendment to Clause 29, now Clause 30, put and agreed to.

         Clause 29 now Clause 30 as amended, put and agreed to.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: But the amendment is not here Hon. Minister.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Yes it is the same, the privileges and immunities, exactly what we have removed, the next Clause for other public servants, we are removing it on page 23, which is the next Clause 30 on page 23 between lines 10 and 20, which is sub Clause 4 (c), we remove exactly the same that we have removed there.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I think the Minister has already made his submission.  So, I proceed…..

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA: On a point of order Hon. Chairperson. We are here to debate, please bear with us.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Madzivanyika, what is your point of order?

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Hon. Chairperson, I think you skipped the path for allowing us to debate Clause 30 because it talks about the sovereign wealth fund of Zimbabwe.  I think there was no opportunity for debate.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  I think what the Minister has said is that he has deleted the same things that are on Clause 29.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  That is what I want to debate, I was just checking because part of this amendment…..

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, I think the Hon. Member was not listening.  What I have put forward is the amendment and I did indicate the pages, do not worry about the amendments that you are seeing on the Order Paper, follow what is in the actual Bill.  I said disclosure of assets is in two parts under the Clause that speaks to the Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities and then disclosure of assets and interests by public servants, which is in the Bill as new Clause inserted to Clause 30, new section inserted in [Chapter 9.24] and it is on page 23 between lines 10 and 20.  So, if you can debate that to say you want your distant relatives’ assets to be listed among your assets – [HON. TAFANANA ZHOU:  Taurai nechishona Minister haana kuzvinzwa.] –

        HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Can you indulge me Hon. Chair, can I proceed?  I think we are reading from a different script because there is this amendment that was posted on the group of the 10^th Parliament, it has Clause 17, Clause 19 and then Clause 30.  If you look at Clause 30 on this amendment, it talks about the Sovereign Wealth Fund which is totally divorced from what the Hon. Minister is saying.  I want that clarity so that we move together along that path.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Yes the amendment is a new Clause 30 that has been inserted.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I want to confirm with the Minister if we are now on the same page so that I can debate.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what he has said. 

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you.

         Amendment to Clause 29 now 30, put and agreed to.

         Clause 29, now 30 as amended, put and agreed to.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, what is the numbering of the part deals with the sovereign wealth, what number is it, it now becomes Clause 31, is that correct?  So the Clause that deals with the sovereign wealth is now Clause 31.  I shall now report the Bill with amendments.

         HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  On a point of order Hon. Chairperson.  I wanted clarification whether we are going to Clause 31 or not. 

On Clause 31:

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (HON. D. K. MNANGAGWA): Clause 31, amendment of [Chapter 22:20].  The Sovereign Wealth of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 22:20] No 7 of 2014 as amended subsection (a) by the repeal of Section 22(b) in Section 27(1) by the deletion of the title and the substitution of “compliance with host country laws” Subsection 2 by the repeal of Subsection 2.  I move that this amendment stay as part of the Bill.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I would like to draw your attention to Clause 31 as amended, Part A which talks of the repeal of Section 22 of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act of Zimbabwe.  If you look at the Part A which moves for the repeal of Section 22 of the Sovereign Wealth Fund, what comes into my mind is what does Section 22 of the Sovereign Wealth Fund says.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  On a point of order Hon. Chair.  What was referred by Senate which was not adopted by the National Assembly is Part B of that Clause.  So, if the Member can now debate on that which was referred and not that which they agreed to.

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  I stand guided Mr. Chair.  If it is only Part B to be debated, I will withdraw.  I thank you.

Amendment to Clause 31 put and agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  I move that Orders of the Day Numbers 5 to 22 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until Order of the Day Number 23 has been disposed of.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE DELEGATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY MEETING AT THE WORLD WATER FORUM HELD IN BALI, INDONESIA

HON. SHAMU:  Thank you Hon. Speaker.  I rise to move the motion standing in my name that this House takes note of the Report of the delegation on the Indonesia-Africa   Parliamentary Forum held in Bali, Indonesia from 31^st August to 2^nd September 2024.

HON. DR. MAKWIRANZOU: I second.

HON. SHAMU: Mr. Speaker Sir, the Indonesia- Africa Parliamentary Forum was convened in Bali, the cultural hub of Indonesia from 31^st August to 2^nd September 2024 under the overarching theme, “'Forging Indonesia - Africa Parliamentary Partnership for Development.’

The second edition of the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum was a follow up to the first Indonesia- Africa Parliamentary Forum convened in 2018, which sought to explore and enhance strategic cooperation between Indonesia and Africa within the context of Africa’s Agenda 2063.

Accordingly, the 2024 Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum galvanised the relations between Africa and Indonesia from a Parliamentary perspective, serving as a timeless reminder of the historical experiences and attendant aspirations towards self-determination, social justice and sustainable economic development. It was, therefore, befitting that the Forum was attended by over 150 participants from 21 African countries, including ten (10) Speakers, seven (7) Deputy Speakers as well as 17 Indonesian Members of Parliament.

Hon. Advocate Jacob Francis Nzwidamilimo Mudenda, Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe led a Parliamentary delegation to the Forum comprising the following Members of Parliament: - Hon. Webster Kotiwani Shamu, Member of Parliament and Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Hon. Sithabisiwe Moyo, Member of Parliament and Member of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Hon. Brian Mudumi. Member of Parliament and member of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Speaker Mudenda and his delegation were received at the airport by the Zimbabwean Ambassador designate to Indonesia, His Excellency, Mr. Martin Makururu and Counsellor, Mrs. Viola Matongorere. In keeping with established practice, Ambassador designate Makururu interfaced with the Hon. Speaker Mudenda on 31^st  August 2024, providing a comprehensive brief on the operations of the Mission in Indonesia, particularly the strides made in upscaling economic cooperation between Zimbabwe and Indonesia for the mutual benefit of the citizenry of the two sister Republics, which dovetails with His Excellency, the President, Cde Dr. E.D Mnangagwa’s policy thrust of striving towards an upper middle-class economy by 2030. 

WELCOME DINNER

On 31^st August 2024, Her Excellency, Ms. Puan Maharani, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia hosted a welcome dinner in honour of participants of the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum. In attendance were distinguished guests who included Speaker Mudenda, Speaker of the Parliament of Tunisia, Speaker of the Senate of Kenya, President of the Senate of the Parliament of Burundi, Speaker of Zanzibar, President of Senate of the Parliament of Eswatini, the representative of Her Excellency, the First Lady of Kenya and several Deputy Speakers as well as the Governor of Bali Province and Members of Parliament.

In her welcome remarks, the host Speaker extended a warm welcome to participating delegates from African Parliaments to Bali, Indonesia’s cultural hub island. She was confident that the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum will provide a critical platform in enhancing socio-economic relations between Indonesia and Africa, through the exploration of possible areas of cooperation between the Indonesian Parliament and African Parliaments. In the same vein, she extolled the need to celebrate the existing fraternal ties between Indonesia and Africa as she wished the delegates a successful Forum outcome.

In conclusion, she signed a memorabilia stamp in commemoration of the historic occasion. Subsequently, all delegates received the signed stamp as a souvenir to immortalise their attendance in Bali.

OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE INDONESIA-AFRICA PARLIAMENTARY FORUM

In her official opening speech, Her Excellency, Dr Puan Maharani, Speaker of House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia, made reference to the historical pledge of solidarity among the people of Asia and Africa at the Bandung Conference of 1955. Accordingly, that Conference has been a guiding principle on the strategic relationship critically anchored on shared values of South-South co-operation, promoting Afro-Asian economic and cultural interface, anti-colonialism and anti-neo–colonialism as enunciated sixty-nine years ago during the Bandung Conference. Dr. Maharani opined that Indonesia Parliament and African Parliaments are now convening under very positive circumstances wherein Parliamentary diplomacy is taking a central role with Parliaments being consulted on global issues that affect the people they represent. In this context, Dr. Maharani identified key areas for strategic cooperation between Indonesia and Africa, namely, in the arena of renewable energy, food sovereignty, digital economy and women participation in both private and public sectors.

Finally, the Host Speaker called for strategic and impactful partnerships that bring peace and prosperity to the people of Indonesia and Africa. This essentially calls for the involvement of Parliaments in the search for global solutions to worldwide challenges. In this vein, she called for the full independence of Palestine and peace in Gaza, Ukraine and in all conflict zones in the world. 

SPECIAL SESSION

The Special Session was held under the overarching theme, “Forging Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Partnership for Development”.  The leitmotif was informed by the close historical relationship between Indonesia and Africa. Accordingly, the keynote presentations provided strategic direction for enhancing the existing relations and exploring potential areas of cooperation for the mutual benefit of the citizens from the two regions.

In his keynote address, on behalf of the delegation from Zimbabwe and indeed on his own behalf, Speaker Mudenda conveyed fraternal commendation to the host Speaker, Her Excellency, Dr Puan Maharani, Speaker of House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia for the impeccable logistical and hospitality arrangements accorded to delegates attending the Indonesia – Africa Parliamentary Forum.

Turning to substantial matters in relation to the Forum, Speaker Mudenda exhorted the Plenary to be motivated by the Bandung spirit, in which the African and Asian socio-economic umbilical cord was immortalized for posterity. The Bandung Declaration accentuated the respect for the inalienable fundamental human rights, the equality of sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations under the banner of multilateralism and non-intervention or interference in the internal affairs of each other’s countries, Speaker Mudenda opined.

On the economic front and in an effort to give impetus to trade between Indonesia and Africa, Speaker Mudenda exhorted both regions’ Parliaments to show dexterity and ingenuity in crafting trade laws which establish One–Stop–Investment Centres such as the Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM), the Zimbabwe Investment Development Agency or the Rwanda Investment Board. Speaker Mudenda also underscored the centrality of synergised trade laws between Indonesia and Africa as being critical in eliminating trade barriers. To that an extent, Advocate Mudenda called on Africa to harness the plethora of economic opportunities that exist courtesy of friendly laws enacted by Indonesia so as to catalyse development in Africa.

Speaker Mudenda received all round approbation for his delivery which contextualised contemporary issues in the Indonesia-Africa relations at the same time locating the cardinal historic precedent of the South-South solidarity as encapsulated by the Bandung Conference spirit.

In her keynote address to delegates, Her Excellency, Retno Marsudi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia commended the convening of the Indonesia – Africa Parliamentary Forum as it strengthens the strong friendship between Indonesia and African countries. She observed that though geographically distant, Indonesia and African countries have continued on the trajectory of shared values rooted in the 1955 Bandung Conference. Accordingly, she reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to enhancing the existing fraternal ties which translate the Bandung spirit into practical cooperation.

Turning to the complex global challenges including geopolitical conflicts, economic uncertainties and climate change, the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for inter-parliamentary collaboration in resolving common problems. She emphasised that Parliaments, as representatives of the people, play a pivotal role in preserving peace and stability in the regions through enacting appropriate legislation and robust policy formulation. Peace and security, she opined, remained the cornerstone of sustainable development. In this vein, she echoed the host Speaker’s sentiments on the need for Parliaments to actively mobilise international public pressure to end aggression and genocide in Palestine as well as supporting humanitarian efforts in that region.

Additionally, she called for concerted efforts in exploring possible areas of cooperation in such fields such as health, food sovereignty through sustainable agricultural initiatives, trade and investment as well as mining. Accordingly, she emphasised the need to translate these opportunities into tangible benefits for the people of Indonesia and African countries. 

Lastly, in the spirit of the Bandung Conference, the Minister of Foreign Affairs advocated for an inclusive development agenda that takes into consideration the needs of developing countries and the aspirations of their citizenry. Speaking at the same occasion, Ms. Hanna Keraf, co-founder of Du Anyam articulated her organisation’s objectives, whose thrust endeavours to economically empower the women of Indonesia through supporting weavers, specifically training and providing international market opportunities for its membership.

Furthermore, Ms. Keraf acknowledged the difficult circumstances women endure in their quest for sustainable livelihoods given their demanding gender roles. To that an extent, she expressed gratitude to the women of Indonesia who are in decision making positions for their remarkable achievements in uplifting and empowering vulnerable women through their deliberate mentorship.

Ms. Keraf, therefore, called on Parliaments to play their legislative, budgetary, representative and oversight roles in order to further the cause of women by ensuring that gender responsive budgeting is implemented, financing projects for women and addressing the issue of equal distribution of labour in the home. In his address during the Special Session, Mr. Michael Victor Sianipar, President of Indonesia Youth Diplomacy, underscored the need for solidarity and strategic cooperation between Indonesia and Africa in order to foster sustainable development, mutual support and stimulate peace and security in the regions. Accordingly, he implored the countries to invest in infrastructure and skills development in order to enhance human capital development in Indonesia and Africa.

 

 

WORKING SESSIONS

The working sessions were conducted in a format that allowed for candid and interactive discussions on the following sub-themes:

South – South Cooperation for Prosperity and Sustainable Development: This theme explored strategies to reduce disparity between countries in order to achieve inclusive sustainable development through advancing digital transformation, enhancing people to people relationships, facilitating cultural exchanges and supporting South-South and Triangular Cooperation;

Building Resilient Communities through health and food security initiatives: The theme focused on measures to mitigate the regions’ susceptibility to the global food crisis by fostering collaboration and investing in, among others, sustainable agronomic research and extension services.

Harnessing Trade and Investment Potentials for inclusive economic growth: The session reflected on the dynamic role of trade and investment in fostering inclusive economic growth within developing regions, particularly between Indonesia and Africa.

Accordingly, high level panelists and experts were invited to share their observations on the sub-themes. Additionally, participants shared their country experiences and best parliamentary practices.  In furtherance of the recognition of Parliament of Zimbabwe providing thought leadership at such Fora, and following in the footsteps of Speaker Mudenda who delivered a keynote address during the official opening of the Indonesia- Africa Forum, Hon Shamu was part of the discussants during a Special session entitled ‘South-South Cooperation for Economic Prosperity and Sustainable Growth’.

Hon. Shamu enunciated the country’s position wherein Zimbabwe and Indonesia have made commendable strides in elevating trade between the two sister Republics as espoused by the sound balance of trade which has increased exponentially at an impressive annualised rate of 20.7%. Finally, Hon Shamu, also spoke to the untapped potential in the agriculture and mining sectors which provide a window of opportunity for further strengthening of economic relations in these sectors for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries.

OUTCOMES AND CLOSING CEREMONY

At the conclusion of a highly interactive sessions, the Plenary re-affirmed that the South-South cooperation is indeed a key cog towards ameliorating the developing countries' over-dependency on traditional North-South aid and development frameworks which have not benefitted them for time immemorial. Ultimately, the South-South cooperation was touted as a viable conduit for developing countries to leverage their shared experiences, resources and expertise to achieve more equitable and sustainable development outcomes as espoused within the overall theme of the South-South cooperation for economic prosperity and sustainable growth.

The Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum was officially closed by the Host Speaker, Her Excellency, Dr. Puan Maharani. Dr. Maharani expressed satisfaction with the vibrant exchanges conducted in the spirit of solidarity with the shared common objective of strengthening existing cooperation between Indonesia and Africa through Parliamentary diplomacy. The discussions reiterated Parliaments’ central role in advancing sustainable economic growth as well as addressing global challenges such as climate change and geopolitical tensions through their legislative, oversight, representation and budgetary roles.

Accordingly, the Host Speaker summarised the key strategic areas highlighted during the three interactive Sessions as follows: There is need to enhance co-operation in the health sector as well as food and energy security; Indonesia and Africa should harness and exploit the regions’ abundant resources and opportunities in sectors that include agriculture, trade and investment as well as digital technologies; Reaffirmed the commitment to people-centred development as a priority; Indonesia strongly supports a prosperous, peaceful and united Africa within the context of Africa’s Agenda 2063; Acknowledged that the future is in the hands of the young generation with Africa expected to contribute 42% of the global youth population by 2050; Encouraged Parliaments to stand against policies from nations that hinder the progress of developing countries such as neo-colonialism tendencies and protectionism; Principles such as self-determination, respect for sovereignty and political equality should be observed in today’s increasingly multilateral world. Accordingly, the Ten Bandung Principles of 1955 such as the respect and promotion of fundamental rights, equality of the nations’ sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as non-intervention or interference in each other’s countries should be the foundation for cooperation between Indonesia and African Parliaments; Called for Parliaments to support a ceasefire in the Middle East and the attainment of full independence for Palestine on the basis of the two-state principle for Israel and Palestine.

The Host Speaker reaffirmed the Indonesian House of Representatives’ commitment to positioning African Parliaments as key partners in the South-South cooperation. Furthermore, she encouraged continuous engagements in global Parliamentary Forums such as the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU). She concluded her closing remarks with a quote from President Surkano at the opening of the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung when he affirmed that; 

“Let us remember, Sisters and Brothers, we, Asians and Africans, must be united!”

 

 

DINNER

To crown it all, the Head of State and Government of the Republic of Indonesia, His Excellency, Joko Widodo, hosted a joint dinner at State House for Heads of State and Government and Speakers as well as Heads of Parliamentary delegations to the Indonesia-Africa Forum. Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Col (Rtd) Kembo Mohadi and Speaker of Parliament, Hon Advocate J.F.N Mudenda attended the dinner as Heads of delegations for the Second Indonesia-Africa Forum and the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum respectively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In June 2024, the Parliament of Zimbabwe hosted a high-level delegation from the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia led by His Excellency, Dr. Puan Fadli Zon, Chairperson of the Committee for Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation. The purpose of the visit was to foster and promote parliamentary relations between House of Representatives of Indonesia and the Parliament of Zimbabwe and to enhance bilateral socio-economic and cultural cooperation. It was, therefore, befitting for a high-level Parliamentary delegation led by the Hon. Speaker Mudenda to participate in the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum. In this context, Parliament of Zimbabwe is cognisant of the need to upscale the existing relationship with Indonesia for the mutual benefit of the citizenry of the two sister Republics. Accordingly, the Parliament of Zimbabwe ought to strengthen sustained relations between the two legislatures through the establishment of a vibrant Zimbabwe-Indonesia Parliamentary Friendship Association. The Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade should spearhead this process.

The Government of Zimbabwe, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade should continue exploring opportunities for cooperation in key sectors such as health, renewable energy, digital technologies, trade and investment, among others, in order to foster sustainable socio-economic development. This can be achieved through signing strategic Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Furthermore, it is critical to ensure that such agreements are implemented in full in order to realise intended benefits. In this regard, Parliament of Zimbabwe, through its oversight function, should ensure the timeous implementation of signed MOU’s to ensure sustained cooperation between the two sister Republics.

In keeping with the spirit of the Bandung Conference of 1955 which espoused principles of self-determination, respect for sovereignty, political equality and people centred development, the Parliament of Zimbabwe should play its role in resolving global challenges by actively participating in Parliamentary diplomacy at regional and international fora by supporting initiatives that encourage peace, stability and sustainable development. This calls for sustained Parliamentary engagement on global issues.

CONCLUSION

The Delegation extends its appreciation to the Government and Parliament of Zimbabwe for affording it the opportunity to participate in the Indonesia-Africa Parliamentary Forum which was a resounding success. I thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –

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

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Before the seconder? 

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Okay, I withdraw.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I have not even put the question.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Of that debate?

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Yes.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Go ahead, I have withdrawn. 

Hon. Members having said there is no further debate.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  You are being unprocedural.  We need the seconder first.

HON. S. MOYO: I am here Hon. Speaker Sir. 

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Yes, I thought you were there, please proceed.

⁺HON. S. MOYO: Thank you Hon. Speaker Sir, for this opportunity to second the report tabled by Hon. Shamu. We travelled well like what the Chair said.  This journey was a good one.  It was for African countries which were invited by the Indonesian Republic to meet and discuss the development and bilateral discussions between the Indonesia and African countries to see how and what development can be discussed by all countries.

We were received by the head of delegation of the Hon. Speaker of Indonesia who put together encouraging words on unity between Indonesia and African countries.  Our Speaker, Hon. J. F. N. Mudenda gave words that the unity between Indonesia and Africa will be a success.  That was the main aim we had travelled for so that we build good relationships between Indonesia and the African countries and we were led by our Hon. Speaker.  As we were there, we had a lot of discussions which bring hope that they may give a lot of development as the Speaker of Indonesian Parliament insisted that the countries get united, there will be a lot of developments especially in terms of agriculture. We will benefit a lot from the Indonesian countries. Our Chairperson Hon. Shamu also got an opportunity to put his remarks that our countries, if united and come up, we can grow our economy and some strategies that we put upfront that if we can follow those strategies as a country, we can also benefit especially from Indonesia. Remember, Indonesia once visited us here and all of us saw them as they came to pay us a courtesy call here and to foster a bi-lateral relationship between us and Indonesia so that they can also get what will develop the nation of Indonesia. It was a successful trip. We were welcomed as alluded to by our Chairperson and led by our Hon. Speaker. Thank you, Hon. Speaker for this opportunity.

⁺THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you so much, you said it in detail. 

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

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday 1^st October, 2024.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have received a Non-adverse report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Finance (2024) Bill [H.B 8B, 2024].

Consideration Stage: With leave, forthwith.

CONSIDERATION STAGE

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

Amendments to new Clause 17, new Clause 19 and the substituted Clause 29, now 30 and new Clause 31 put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third Reading; With leave, forthwith.

THIRD READING

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

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

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the third time.

On the motion of THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI), the House adjourned at Twenty-One Minutes past Five o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 1^st October, 2024.