Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 491333,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/491333/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 206,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Madam Temporary Speaker, the Natural Resources Royalty Fund is going to be the key thing; it is the magnet in the whole thing. We agreed among the Committee Members that it was going to be difficult for us to go into each of the natural resources in terms of industry. We agreed that whichever format is already in the process in terms of revenue collection. Let it remain as it is but let us create this fund that is very important – the Natural Resources Royalty Fund. It is in that fund that the money will go in. We also decided as a Committee that we will concentrate more on our redistributive approach rather than an accumulation approach because that was going to be impossible for us. So, in the redistributive approach, we made a bold proposal that from the 100 per cent that is collected as the Royalty Fund at the national level, that initially 80 per cent be put aside for redistribution and 20 per cent be put into what we are calling a Sovereign Fund. Now, this is a new way to go in terms of thinking about a Sovereign Fund that will, one, cater for a Futures Fund. The reasoning is that the resources that are now there in place are not only for the present generation but also for the generations that come to prosperity. Therefore, they also have a share in those natural resources as do the present generation who are exposed to those specific natural resources. As a Committee, we thought that the Futures Fund should take 60 per cent and the 40 per cent should go to a Natural Resource Fund. Madam Temporary Speaker, it is true that the Natural Resource Fund, as Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale has said, needs to be very specific about exactly what that money will be used for. One of the suggestions that we may put forward as a way to use that money for that fund is for rehabilitation, especially of natural resources environment to ensure that even that resource can continue to be generated. If we exploit and finish everything that comes from the ground, we will actually deplete the resource altogether and find that we do not have a way of enjoying the resources that accrue. So, we need to make other suggestions, but we need to be very specific about how that is going to be used. Then for the 80 per cent, 40 per cent will go to the source county and 60 per cent will go to the national Government. Of the 40 per cent that goes to the source county, 40 per cent will go to the community and 60 per cent will go to the county government. We have to be very careful that what goes into the county government in terms of the project and utilization of that fund is very clear that, that money does not go into the county kitty for the county government that comes from the taxpayers and from the revenue resource allocation that we do generally from Article 203; the distribution that is made from what comes into the kitty. There has to be a clear separation that this is the money that is going into the county government, but specifically to help with county projects that target the county and the community. We also wanted to make sure that the communities do not find themselves lost somewhere and 40 per cent goes to those specific communities to ensure that at the end of the day they have a way to ensure that they have means, process and the power to actually come up with projects – be it roads or schools – where they can actually say to the people that here we are because of this particular resource. This is how far we have gone. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}