Online Reporter
Zvamaida Murwira-Senior Reporter
The Tourism Amendment Bill, which seeks to transform the sector into a US$5 billion industry, came up for debate in the National Assembly last week, with legislators divided over a clause proposing the establishment of a standalone Tourism Fund.
The clause sparked heated exchanges among MPs, with some arguing that the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority (ZTA) should continue administering the fund, while others insisted the fund must operate independently to better support tourism marketing and infrastructure development.
The proposed standalone Tourism Fund is intended to improve governance, transparency and accountability, while providing resources to promote local tourism products and support struggling operators.
Currently, tourism and hospitality players contribute 2 percent of their revenue to a fund managed by the ZTA.
Tourism and Hospitality Industry Minister Barbra Rwodzi, who was steering the Bill during Committee Stage — where the whole House debates each clause — said there was need for an independent entity to superintend over the fund, given that both ZTA and Mosi‑oa‑Tunya are beneficiaries.
Dzivarasekwa MP Mr Edward Mushoriwa had proposed amending Clause Five to retain the ZTA as custodian of the fund, but Minister Rwodzi rejected the proposal.
“The Zimbabwe Tourism Fund is for marketing the destination and for developing tourism infrastructure. ZTA has a responsibility for marketing and is a beneficiary of the Tourism Fund.
“Mosi‑oa‑Tunya is responsible for infrastructure development and is also a beneficiary.
“Now, we cannot ask the Minister to sit and decide about the tourism infrastructure with the ZTA Board because their interest and mandate relate to marketing and regulating the industry. Who will represent Mosi‑oa‑Tunya in these meetings about infrastructure development?
“The Minister gives policy direction, and there is nothing wrong with the Minister creating a tourism council that looks after the Tourism Fund independently of the ZTA Board, which focuses on marketing and regulation. The functions of ZTA and Mosi‑oa‑Tunya differ. We want clarity and independence in running this fund, ensuring ZTA receives what belongs to it for marketing and Mosi‑oa‑Tunya gets what is due for infrastructure development.”
She added that inadequate structural funding had hampered the upgrading of several tourism facilities.
“I cannot take money from the fiscus to develop bulk infrastructure at Tokwe‑Mukosi or Masuwe in Victoria Falls. Government already established Mosi‑oa‑Tunya in 2012 for this purpose. The Tourism Fund has been under ZTA, which benefits only for marketing and promotion. Mosi‑oa‑Tunya is the institution expected to drive tourism infrastructure growth,” she said.
Gutu South MP Cde Pupurai Togarepi supported the Minister, saying ZTA and Mosi‑oa‑Tunya could not administer a fund from which they both benefit. However, opposition CCC legislators disagreed.
Mr Mushoriwa argued that there would be no prejudice if ZTA continued administering the fund, since the same Minister appoints the Authority’s board.
“In any event, who is the ZTA? According to the Bill, ZTA board members will be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the President. If the Minister oversees ZTA, why should we fear allowing this entity to manage the tourism fund?” he asked.
Harare West MP Ms Joana Mamombe said public consultations had shown support for ZTA retaining control.
“During consultations, there was a proposal to extend the functions of the board to include administering the fund. The public expressed satisfaction with the status quo because this is how it currently operates within ZTA,” said Ms Mamombe, who also chairs the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Tourism and Hospitality Industry.
Marondera Central MP Mr Caston Matewu added that Parliament had full authority to legislate in whatever manner it deemed appropriate.
“Why is this fund so special that it has to be independent? Why can we not allow a constitutional body we created — as a House — to manage it? Why must it be administered elsewhere when it is a tourism fund?” he said.
After intense debate, the House agreed that a separate entity would administer the fund as proposed in Clause Five of the Bill.
Debate also continued on other clauses, with the House adopting additional amendments to the Bill. The Bill has since been referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee to assess whether the amendments made during debate comply with the Constitution.
