Madam Speaker, it is a no brainer. When we went into 2008/9, we liberalised the fuel industry. What we are doing right now is that we have gone back into controlling the fuel industry and it has never worked in any country. We need to make sure that – like we say in shona zvinonaka zvinodhura, those that have cars have access to some kind of forex, those that do not have, use public transport. So let us subsidise the poor to be able to move. For those who want to go into private cars; if I go to the United Kingdom right now, I can buy a car for 100 pounds but the reason why everybody in the UK does not drive a car is that it is expensive to run a car. So you are then forced to go to public transport. I think we need to start dealing with both the ideological issues that say who are we supporting right now?
At the moment, if we allow everybody to get their jerry cans, drums to the fuel pumps, we are basically supporting the rich by taxing the poor which is why the 2% is not so popular. People are saying, why am I paying 2% so that I can facilitate the people that have 5 to 6 cars that are guzzlers. We can do it tomorrow and if we do it, we are able to deal with the issue around fuel.
The second issue that I wanted to raise is to also deal with the other commodities. We have just said we have removed Statutory Instrument 122 but the ridiculousness of that decision is that we are still allowing people to bring in those imports and they are paying in the bond which has a fiction of 1:1. We should, at this particular point in time, have been able to get a lot of forex within this particular week where we removed S. I. 122 if we started saying anyone who is importing anything pays in foreign currency because when you import whether it is a car or food stuffs, it means you have foreign currency on you.
So why are we having a situation where we subsidise the person who has gone out, used foreign currency and when they get to the border they do not pay using foreign currency? It is a no brainer to me and if we do that, by today or tomorrow, we would be having a lot of money in terms of forex – which forex we can then use in terms of the subsidies that we are trying to do.
Madam Speaker, we cannot continue using foreign currency to import things like dyes. Many of us who are sitting here should be grey haired but our hair is looking dark – not because we are young but we are dying our hair. Somebody is using our special forex to go and buy dye and at this rate we may end up having to import sex toys. I suppose sex toys are alright because our males are struggling with the stress around that hence women may actually want sex toys. – [Laughter.] – What I am trying to get back to you Madam Speaker, is that let us have a situation where if you want expensive things – pay for them.
We woke up one morning and Dr. Mangundya said, ‘Everybody who has DSTV should pay for it in foreign currency.’ People complained but guess what? We are still watching DSTV and paying for it in forex, meaning there is a particular class in this country that can afford to pay in foreign currency. Let those who want the special luxurious things be asked to pay in foreign currency and those who we need to subsidise then be subsidised.
The third issue that I wanted to raise which I think is crucial, because one of the things that we are failing to do in terms of this economy is to realise that the initial process is a process of stabilisation. Even for a patient, thankfully I was married to a surgeon for 15 years, so I know a little bit of medicine – [AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible interjection.] – Yes, by association my dear. You are assuming that I was having very little sex but I probably was having a lot of it…
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order address the Chair Hon. Member.
Continued next page
(493 VIEWS)
