FIFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) FIRST SESSION FRIDAY 03 DECEMBER 2010 - No. 23 of 2010
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
No. 23 of 2010
FIFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
FIRST SESSION
FRIDAY 03 DECEMBER 20102
CONTENTS
ANNOUNCEMENT
PAPER LAID
QUESTION (ORAL)
MOTION
BILL (Public) - The Appropriation (2011) Bill (No. XVI1 of 2010)
ADJOURNMENT3
Members Members
THE CABINET
(Formed by Dr. the Hon. Navinchandra Ramgoolam)
Dr. the Hon. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, GCSK, FRCP Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs and
External Communications
Dr. the Hon. Ahmed Rashid Beebeejaun, GCSK, FRCP Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Energy and Public
Utilities
Hon. Charles Gaëtan Xavier-Luc Duval, GCSK Vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Social Integration and
Economic Empowerment
Hon. Pravind Kumar Jugnauth Vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Economic
Development
Hon. Anil Kumar Bachoo Minister of Public Infrastructure, National Development
Unit, Land Transport and Shipping
Dr. the Hon. Arvin Boolell Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and
International Trade
Dr. the Hon. Abu Twalib Kasenally, FRCS Minister of Housing and Lands
Hon. Mrs Sheilabai Bappoo, GOSK Minister of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family
Welfare
Hon. Nandcoomar Bodha Minister of Tourism and Leisure
Dr. the Hon. Vasant Kumar Bunwaree Minister of Education and Human Resources
Hon. Satya Veryash Faugoo Minister of Agro-Industry and Food Security
Hon. Showkutally Soodhun Minister of Industry and Commerce
Hon. Devanand Virahsawmy, GOSK Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development
Dr. the Hon. Rajeshwar Jeetah Minister of Tertiary Education, Science, Research and
Technology
Hon. Satyaprakash Ritoo Minister of Youth and Sports
Hon. Mrs Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun Minister of Social Security, National Solidarity and Reform
Institutions
Hon. Louis Hervé Aimée Minister of Local Government and Outer Islands
Hon. Mrs Santi Bai Hanoomanjee Minister of Health and Quality of Life
Hon. Mookhesswur Choonee Minister of Arts and Culture
Hon. Tassarajen Pillay Chedumbrum Minister of Information and Communication Technology
Hon. Louis Joseph Von-Mally, GOSK Minister of Fisheries and Rodrigues
Hon. Ashit Kumar Gungah Minister of Civil Service Affairs and Administrative
Reforms
Hon Shakeel Ahmed Yousuf Abdul Razack Mohamed Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations and
Employment
Hon Yatindra Nath Varma Attorney General
Hon John Michaël Tzoun Sao Yeung Sik Yuen Minister of Business, Enterprise, Cooperatives and
Consumer Protection4
Members Members
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS
Mr Speaker Purryag, Hon. Rajkeswur, GCSK, GOSK
Deputy Speaker Roopun, Hon. Prithvirajsing
Deputy Chairman of Committees Hossen, Hon. Abdullah Hafeez
Clerk of the National Assembly Dowlutta, Mr R. Ranjit
Deputy Clerk Lotun, Mrs B. Safeena
Clerk Assistant Ramchurn, Ms Urmeelah Devi
Chief Hansard Reporter and Lam Shu On, Ms Clivie
Sub-Editor
Senior Library Officer Pallen, Mr Noël
Serjeant-at-Arms Munroop, Mr Kishore5
MAURITIUS
Fifth National Assembly
---------------
FIRST SESSION
---------
Debate No. 23 of 2010
Sitting of Friday 03 December 2010
The Assembly met in the Assembly House, Port Louis,
At 3.30 p.m
The National Anthem was played
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)6
ANNOUNCEMENT
VICE PRIME MINISTER, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT – LETTER – RODRIGUES NATIONAL BUDGET
Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, at the sitting of the 30th November 2010, the hon. Leader
of the Opposition raised a point of order as to whether the hon. vice Prime Minister, Minister of
Finance and Economic Development had not misled the House when he stated at the end of his
reply to the Private Notice Question that – “… there is only one line for Rodrigues and he said: ‘I
am providing in the National Budget Rs1.1 billion for Rodrigues.’”
In the meantime I have received a letter from the hon. vice Prime Minister, Minister of
Finance and Economic Development which I am going to read –
‘Dear Mr Speaker,
Towards the end of my reply to the Private Notice Question of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition on Tuesday the 30th November 2010, I stated the following in reference to the 2003-
2004 budget speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the then Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance, I quote –
“…there is only one line for Rodrigues and he said: “I am providing in the
National budget Rs1.1 billion for Rodrigues”
- which has been considered as being offensive to the House. What I had in mind was
budgetary allocation.
I can assure you that nothing could be further from my intentions than to say
anything that might be considered derogatory to the House or offensive to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
I express my profound regrets to the House.”
Following the letter of the hon. vice-Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and
Economic Development which I have just read, I consider the matter closed.7
PAPER LAID
The Prime Minister: Sir, the Paper has been laid on the Table –
Prime Minister’s Office –
Certificate of Urgency in respect of The Local Government (Amendment)
Bill (No. XVIII of 2010).8
ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION
MAURICE ILE DURABLE – PROFESSOR JOEL DE ROSNAY – DISCUSSIONS
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr P. Bérenger) (By Private Notice), asked Dr. the hon.
Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs and External Communications whether, in
regard to his recent discussions on Maurice Ile Durable with his Special Adviser, Professor Joël
de Rosnay, he will state the outcome thereof, indicating if –
(a) he will make public the July 2009 Report of Professor Joël de Rosnay on the CT
Power Coal Project; and
(b) fresh initiatives will be taken in relation to;
(i) geo-thermal energy;
(ii) production of ethanol from molasses and algae;
(iii) gasification of sugarcane;
(iv) storage of wind and solar energy, and
(v) electricity production through ocean thermal energy.
The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the House is aware, I launched the Maurice Ile
Durable concept in March 2008 following in depth consultations with Professor Joël de Rosnay.
Three months later, a MID Fund of Rs1.3 billion was created under the aegis of the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Energy and Public Utilities in a context of high volatility of oil
prices.
The objective of the MID Fund was to ensure the green future of Mauritius by
diversifying the energy mix of the country.
With a view to ensuring a more holistic approach to sustainable development, a Steering
Committee was set up in my Office. The Steering Committee, chaired by Mr Osman Mahomed
comprises senior representatives of several Ministries, academia and development partners
namely Agence Française de Développement (AFD), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and the European Union.
The Steering Committee has identified several schemes and initiatives. A National
Consultation exercise on Maurice Ile Durable was launched in February of this year, the purpose
of which is to crystalise the MID vision into a White Paper. I must here emphasize, Mr Speaker,
Sir, that the MID, since its inception, has had the full support of Development Partners and the9
UNDP has funded this exercise by providing the services of Professor François Odendaal as
general facilitator.
The Steering Committee has also produced a road map to integrate sustainable
development in our national development policy. This road map has already benefited from the
support of the AFD to the tune of 125 m. Euros together with a total grant of 2.3 m. Euros
provided in the form of technical assistance.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to point out that Professor Joël de Rosnay was consistently
consulted and informed of the work of the Steering Committee.
In the course of his recent visit to Mauritius, I had two consultative working sessions with
Professor Joël de Rosnay to review progress on MID, to discuss ways and means to move the
MID project forward, and to ensure that there is a clear Action Plan, and to prioritise what we
need to do over the next five years.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to part (a) of the question, the report of Professor Joël de
Rosnay was prepared at my specific request, to enable me to have an informed opinion on a
number of issues. Since this Report was for my personal consumption, the question of making it
public does not arise.
Regarding part (b) of the question, several initiatives have already been taken in respect
of renewable energy. As far as geothermal energy is concerned, the Mauritius Research Council,
in 2009, sponsored a study on the geothermal potential of Mauritius, which included a study of
the surface geology. According to this preliminary study, a few regions have been identified as
having a potential for a geothermal exploitation. However, thorough geological, geophysical and
geochemical analyses and surveys need to be carried out further to precisely locate any
geothermal reservoirs.
I am informed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities has
obtained funding from l’Agence Française de Développement to enlist the services of a
specialised Consultant. Specialised consultancy firms identified, in consultation with AFD, were
invited to submit bids for the study. At closing date of this 12 August 2010, no response to the
bids had been received.
However, one of the potential bidders highlighted, and I wish to quote; he says –
“The geological environment of Mauritius is not highly positive for a high temperature
system to be present. The nature of basaltic volcanism is that the magma is deep seated10
(tens of kilometers) and the lavas flow up relatively confined fracture zones. Such zones
can host high temperature systems, but typically need active movements of lavas from
depth along the zones to maintain temperatures. Without the regular activity, temperature
falls off quite rapidly. The age of the last activity on Mauritius may be too old for heat
retention along a zone, but it is the main hope of success for the project.”
In other words they think, we don’t have much prospects, but I must say here that
Professor Joël de Rosnay holds a different view.
A new tender exercise will be undertaken with revised scope. In the meantime, the
Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Energy and Public Utilities also had consultations with the
Minister of Industry, Energy and Tourism of Iceland about assistance for a study on geothermal
energy in Mauritius. As many Members might know, they are expert in geothermal energy.
In respect of production of ethanol from molasses, as the House is aware, this constitutes
one of the main thrusts of the restructuring of the sugar industry into a sugarcane cluster.
As pointed out in the Economic Restructuring and Competitiveness Program,
Government has taken several actions to accelerate the restructuring of the Industry.
A crucial step in giving a major boost to this restructuring exercise is the production of
ethanol, and of Concentrated Molasses Stillage (CMS), a very useful fertilizer. Accordingly,
bottlenecks as regards their production will be removed, so that production can start in the 2011
crop.
Government will ensure that the production of these two commodities incorporate a
maximum of stakeholders in the sugar and molasses filières. Small and medium planters and
employees shall hold 35% of the equity of the entity undertaking the production of ethanol, in
line with the agreement reached with MSPA.
As from crop 2012, an environmental fee will be levied on molasses exports, to
encourage local value addition in the form of fuel ethanol and potable alcohol.
A study funded by AFD was commissioned in July of this year, to assess the feasibility of
using ethanol in vehicles propelled with gasoline engines.
In regard to the production of ethanol from algae, preliminary studies were conducted by
the Mauritius Research Council, with a view to assessing the production of ethanol as well as
methane gas from local macro algae. Although there are experimental pilot plants that have been
demonstrated in countries such as Japan, the technique is yet to be operational on an industrial11
scale. In addition, the methodology employed requires substantial amount of fresh water, which
may be a constraint in our context.
In regard to the production of bio-diesel from micro algae, I am informed that there are
several claims that this technology has progressed to the commercial phase, such as by the US
based company Algenol LLC. Micro Algae can exist in both fresh and salty water. Preliminary
studies by the MRC indicate that a potential fresh water micro algae called “Chlorella”. This
technology is new for the country and the institution concerned would be advising on the way
forward.
With respect to part (b)(iii) of the question, I am informed that gasification of sugarcane
is not effected anywhere in the world. I assume that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is
referring to gasification of bagasse, itself. According to the information provided by the
Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, while the conventional technology for the
production of electricity from bagasse has a potential of producing annual exportable electricity
of only 115 kw per ton of cane, the biomass integrated gasification gas turbine technology can
raise that figure to 275 kwh per ton of cane.
With the latter, if all the 1.5 million tonnes bagasse produced in Mauritius were to be
gasified, Mauritius would have the potential of exporting 1600 GWh of electricity annually to
the national grid.
In addition, if 50% of the cane tops and trash left in the field at harvest is also gasified,
another 250 GWh of the electricity can be exported to the national grid.
The technical problems involved in integrating gasification technologies into the cane
sugar factories need however to be addressed. The costs to address these technical problems and
to come up with a ready commercial or at least near-commercial technology options are high, I
am told in the order of USD 30 million - that was in 2007 - and accordingly an International
Sugarcane Biomass Utilisation Consortium to consider collaborative research and sharing of the
costs among organizations, that is, those who are interested, was initiated. Unfortunately little
interest has been shown in that endeavour.
In regard to part b(iv) of the Question, substituting fossil fuels by renewable forms of
energy implies provision for the storage to ensure reliability of supply, given that renewable
energy sources, particularly wind, is intermittent, as we all know. Energy storage is one option
to ensure high level of grid penetration using intermittent renewable energy sources.12
There are different forms of energy storage, for example, pumped hydro, batteries,
kinetic, compressed air energy storage and thermal. The storage type depends on the targeted
application. Other options, for the small grid with well advanced demand management, exist.
All these technologies require, however, heavy investments.
Government has set up a Committee in September of this year to look into the storage of
Renewable Energy. The Committee comprises the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Energy
and Public Utilities, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Minister of
Tertiary Education, Science, Research and Technology and the Chairperson of the Steering
Committee of the Maurice Ile Durable project and also, other officials.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to part b(v) of the question, Ocean Thermal energy generates
electricity using the temperature difference between the surface layer and deep water in the
ocean.
I am advised that this technology has reached the point of experimental technical
feasibility, but is not yet commercially viable. All essential elements of this technology have
been demonstrated in a pilot scale in research centres. The economic viability has still to be
proved so that it can attract potential investors.
The Mauritius Research Council has been working in close collaboration with the
National Institute of Ocean Technology of Chennai. Reunion Island is also interested to work
with our institution in regard to this project.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote what I underlined in my address to UNESCO in October
2008 when talking about the MID project -
• Je veux faire la démonstration, à travers ce projet que la volonté, la vision,
l’esprit d’innovation d’un pays est plus puissant que toutes les fatalités ;
• We will implement the Maurice-Ile-Durable Project in a realistic, pragmatic
manner, without jeopardizing the macroeconomic equilibriums that underpin
economic growth;
• We will do so, not with the intention of exemplary virtue, but with a clear
objective of delivering development, and
• Not because it is righteous but because it is right and timely, for I am convinced
that man cannot live off nature but has to live in harmony with nature.”13
Let me, therefore, reiterate here, Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have said at the official opening
of the MID workshop only last Wednesday: there are a couple of prevailing perceptions about
the Maurice-Ile-Durable project that need to be dispelled.
First of all, I said, it is a vision which belongs not to me, not to Government, not to
Professor Joël de Rosnay, not Mr Osman, but the project belongs to the whole Mauritian nation,
to each and every one of us.
Secondly, the MID project is not just a renewable energy project. I find this
misconception with a lot of people. C’est un projet de société pas un projet énergétique. MID is
essentially a vision that seeks to transform the environmental, economic and social landscape of
our country. It is about sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The MID vision is embedded in a strategic framework embracing - we used to say four
development pillars, I have had discussions with Professor de Rosnay and we are now adding
another E. So, in fact, we are referring to MID 5 E’s.
These five development pillars are -
• Education;
• Environment;
• Energy;
• Employment, and
• Equity.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are moving to the second phase of the MID project. Indeed, we have
built the foundation. We must now have a clear Action Plan and a road map for the journey
ahead. I am well aware that there is need for well-planned co-ordination.
That is why I have proposed to set up a Strategic Committee consisting of the public and
the private sector together with stakeholders in civil society. That is what participative
democracy is all about.
We also need to have an Evaluation Committee consisting of scientists and economists
and other professionals which can evaluate and follow up on the projects submitted. That is one
of the problem that we also have. And I intend to appoint a dedicated person so that he can
oversee the whole project and report to my Office.
I strongly believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are on the right path.
We need to move to the next phase and galvanise the whole nation around this project.14
As I have also said, it is in all our interests that we change our mindset, leave our comfort
zones, forget the easy options and think in terms of sustainable development in unison, as one
people.
Mr Bérenger: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the hon. Prime Minister will allow me to say
that the Professor de Rosnay a été très critique about what has taken place over the last two
years. If I can just quote a few words of his –
“Le MID est trop timide. Des choses ne vont pas aussi vite que je l’aurai espéré,
c’est vrai. Quelque part on ne se donne pas les moyens de nos ambitions. Le vrai
problème, c’est l’absence d’un plan d’action. ”
And, I could go on.
“Des choses se font mais il manque une vision d’ensemble et des projets
mobilisateurs. Nous avons commis des erreurs comme le fait de débloquer beaucoup
d’argent sans avoir de ligne directrice.”
Can I know from the hon. Prime Minister by when do we hope that the Action Plan called
for by Professor de Rosnay and the White Paper which the hon. Prime Minister referred to earlier
on should be ready?
The Prime Minister: As I explained, Mr Speaker, Sir, he is an adviser to advise. We
have put the foundation in place. I know there have been some people who have been saying -
and I am not talking about the Opposition, people in general - that there is not enough
coordination. That is why I have put these two committees, apart from the Steering Committee,
so that we can make sure that there is, first of all, people who can evaluate properly, because we
get different reports with different points of view. Also, we need to make sure that we can push
the MID forward, projects forward on the second phase. The White Paper will come, of course,
afterwards, but we have just set up these committees.
Mr Bérenger: I have heard two days ago and today, the hon. Prime Minister announcing
decisions, proposals made by Professor de Rosnay, setting up this and that committee. Can I ask
the hon. Prime Minister whether the main recommendation made by Professor de Rosnay, as far
I can see, will be implemented? That is, he has recommended that the MID Fund be transferred
from the Ministry for Energy to the Ministry of Environment - whoever be the Minister, that’s
not the point, but that the MID Fund should be transferred from the Ministry of Energy to the
Ministry of Environment.15
The Prime Minister: In fact, he did say that. We have discussed it, we have looked at it
properly. As far as I know, regulations have already been signed. It is already done.
Mr Bérenger: Can I know from the hon. Prime Minister whether he has discussed with
Professor Joël de Rosnay, who has repeated, before leaving, that he believes that we can achieve
the target of 65% of our energy consumption from renewal energy by 2030? The hon. Prime
Minister, himself, has been referring to much lower figures. Has he been convinced by Professor
Joël de Rosnay?
The Prime Minister: Professor Joël de Rosnay is a great scientist and he is an Adviser. I
listened to him very carefully. There are other people who think that we would not be able to
attain that, it’s too ambitious; some people think that. I can’t say that I am an expert, but - as I
said, there has to be equilibrium. I can’t go and do something and stop growth in its track. So, we
have to have equilibrium, but we must move towards that target as far as possible.
Mr Bérenger: If I can move on to my question as to whether the Professor Joël de
Rosnay’s July 2009 Report on CT Power Project would be made public. I have heard the hon.
Prime Minister say ‘no’.
That’s rather unfortunate because Professor Joël de Rosnay, himself, has said, during his
last stay, that he expected it to be made public and he thinks it will be made public. The hon.
Prime Minister does not want to make it public.
Clearly, Professor Joël de Rosnay has come out very hard against that project. Does the
hon. Prime Minister agree with Professor Joël de Rosnay’s conclusion and recommendation?
Has Professor Joël de Rosnay, in his report, on that issue, suggested alternatives?
The Prime Minister: In fact, Professor Joël de Rosnay, himself, when he wrote to me –
it’s the first time he works as an Adviser with me at least – he did say: “ Mon avis général sur
les deux projets”. But he said that it is up to the Prime Minister to decide, pour trancher
éventuellement with what it is; he can only give advice and we can listen to him, but we have to
decide.
The reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not that I want to hide. There is that conception perhaps
that why I who have the report. The report was for me, not for anybody else. The report was
prepared for the Prime Minister as an Adviser for the Prime Minister. It is for me, if I may use
his own words, he said at some point, that it is really for ‘l’éclairage du Premier ministre’.
He says:16
“Comme vous le comprenez, M. le Premier ministre, le conseiller du Premier ministre
n’est pas en mesure de trancher sur ces sujets sensibles, mais peut apporter son
éclairage sur la pertinence de ces projets. C’est au Premier ministre de décider. »
The reason why I am not too keen to publicise it is very clear. We have many such
reports, all Prime Ministers, I am sure, do. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has had reports in
the past. It does not mean that when we have a report, we have to accept it. I have to listen, I
have to take other views as well. It is a fact that he has been critical. I have listened to him very
carefully. The problem is that if you publish the report, the problem is going to be this: we have
in Mauritius – maybe it is like this in other places - unfortunately we have people who have
vested interests, they have their own lobbies. I know how it works. I think Members on the
other side also know how this works. They have their own lobbies, they pay people to lobby.
They have their people who can put articles in the press to get publicity. So, I have to make sure.
If I release this report - the report is for me, but it is critical. I am taking on board what he is
saying but, at the same time, I think it will produce, for no good reason, controversies, because
we are going to take the decisions that have to be taken. In fact, we are moving in that direction.
To answer to that part of the question, that is why the report, I thought, maybe, we should not -
we will look at it, we are discussing it and then eventually if need be, then we’ll see, but once the
decision is taken.
Mr Bérenger: If I can move on. As far as geothermal energy is concerned, I listened to
the hon. Prime Minister; apparently, some expert says the potentiel is not there for Mauritius,
whereas Professor Joël de Rosnay said: ‘un potentiel énorme. Le sous-sol de l’ile est une usine à
mégawatts’. The great scientist that he is, he came forward to say: ‘qu’on est capable to
developer 300 mégawatts d’energie electrique dans un délai bref’.
Can I ask the hon. Prime Minister that we are not giving up after one expert has
commented in a negative manner, that we are going to urgently look further into that matter,
helped by advice from Professor Joël de Rosnay?
The Prime Minister: I quoted that bit of what one of the bidders’ consultant has said,
why he thinks it is not possible; we have not had any interest in the bid. But, I tend to think,
because he is a scientist, he knows what he is talking about and he advises me, and he said the
exact figure…
(Interruptions)17
I see that the Leader of the Opposition has the report after all.
(Interruptions)
The press article! I don’t read so much in the press, so I don’t know! But he did mention
that figure of 300 megawatts. He thinks we should start with un appel d’offres, which we are
planning to do. I don’t think he is speaking out like anybody else, he is an expert, he has
knowledge. Like in any field, Mr Speaker, Sir, you have experts who disagree. We see it in the
medical field, we see it in the legal field and we see it in other fields as well - economists
especially. We are going forward with that.
Mr Bérenger : Production of ethanol - I consider that we have lost a lot of time already.
I heard the hon. Prime Minister say that production of ethanol from molasses is going to start
very soon. This makes it all the more extraordinary that there is no reference to it in the Budget
Speech. We will see.
Now, production of ethanol from algae, there is a breakthrough in technology in the
United States, in China and elsewhere. Are we going to look at that? I tend to agree with the
hon. Prime Minister that, here, in Mauritius, production of ethanol from algae, which requires a
lot of sunshine, sea water, but also CO2. It absorbs CO2 from power plants or factories, it will
be very difficult for us to do that in Mauritius, but we could move ahead with Madagascar. The
south of Madagascar, as far as I can see, would be the place where Mauritius and Madagascar
could move ahead, as far as this is concerned.
Can I ask the hon. Prime Minister that we will approach Madagascar, when political
circumstances allow, to work in that direction? Will we be sending somebody to the World
Algae Congress - there is a World Algae Congress, production of ethanol and other things from
algae – next week in San Francisco?
The Prime Minister: First of all, let me say about the project for the algae. In fact, as I
said in my answer, the Mauritius Research Council believes that it is not yet at the stage that we
could do it and he goes on to say that we will require a substantial amount of fresh water, which
may be a constraint in our context.
I also said, just after that, that things have moved on. New technologies have progressed
to the commercial phase. Professor Joël de Rosnay assures me that we can now use also, not just
fresh water, but sea water. He explained to me how it can be done. He made even a small
diagram to explain that to me and also he mentioned that US based company Algenol, is using18
that technology. Also, we have found these fresh water micro algae in Mauritius which is called
‘Chlorella’. We are going to look at this technology. We think we should look at it.
We have not looked at the possibility of Madagascar at this point, but we are looking at
what is the extent we can do it here in Mauritius with people from Algenol who might be
interested on that.
As for the conference, because there is the Budget, there is the Committee of Supply, the
Minister who is responsible for this Ministry has to answer…
(Interruptions)
Yes, but we normally try to see what is the cost benefit for us, whether it is really
important to be there or can we get all the documents afterwards. We will look at it in that light.
Mr Bérenger: On gasification of sugar cane/bagasse, I have the impression that the
Prime Minister has not been informed that the MSIRI has, for a number of years, been working
on this. And years ago, in 2006, from what I know, an international consortium was created. It
must have progressed since then and, in fact, le siège of that international consortium was placed
at MSIRI at Réduit. Can I ask the hon. Minister to look into that and to inform us of what
developments have taken place since 2006?
The Prime Minister: From what I remember, they use gasification of bagasse. That’s
what the Research Council is telling me. I don’t have the details of what has happened, but I can
certainly let the House have the details.
Mr Bérenger: As far as storage of wind and solar energy is concerned, if we are going to
be serious about renewable energy now and in the future, we have to work with those who are
working on storage of wind and solar energy because, as the hon. Prime Minister said, they are
intermittent, they are not continuous like other sources of energy, but a lot of progress has
already been made, especially in the United States and in China and they have been developing
variety of energy storage technologies. Can I take it from the hon. Prime Minister that we will
be looking into that actively as we move forward along the road of renewable energy?
The Prime Minister: In fact, that’s precisely what we are doing because we don’t have
enough expertise here. We are, in fact, looking at those two countries in particular where they
have advanced quite a bit.
Mr Speaker: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, one last question!19
Mr Bérenger: It is on electricity production through ocean thermal energy. We have the
Land-based Oceanographic Industry here, but it is not targeting to produce electricity. In fact,
this is going to use electricity bought from CEB to activate the pump and so on. I am sure the
hon. Prime Minister is aware that apart from the United States, Hawaii and India, they are
working actively on the prototypes and so on, but France is moving in big. I am sure that the
hon. Prime Minister is aware that President Sarkozy when he visited Reunion Island in January
came out very strongly in favour of Reunion going that way. If I can quote –
“En matière d’énergie renouvelable et de réduction des émissions, c’est La
Réunion qui va montrer le chemin et c’est La Réunion qui va devenir une
référence pour la France et une référence dans le monde. »
So, they are going to put billions in there, we don’t have that kind of money, but it is next
door. Maybe that cold water is right in between the two islands! Have we been following up
since President Sarkozy visited Reunion Island in January? Have we been following actively
cette piste? Will the hon. Prime Minister raise the issue when he visits Reunion, I understand, in
a few weeks’ time. En passant, the hon. Prime Minister said that it is still at experimental stage.
Is he aware that amongst other places, the Americans are going ahead with a 13 megawatt plan,
producing electricity through ocean thermal energy of all places in Diego Garcia?
The Prime Minister: I will be reading about it in Lucky Luke very soon, I am sure. No,
I was not aware that they are using it at Diego Garcia. But what I have been told, Mr Speaker,
Sir, is that it is not exactly the same just because it is sea water. That’s what the Land-based
Oceanographic Industry has indicated because there is difference apparently. I am no expert to
be able to say, but I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition - in fact, I mentioned it - that
the Mauritius Research Council is working in close collaboration with the National Institute of
Ocean Technology of Chennai and also with Reunion Island to, in fact, see how it can work
together. In fact, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is right to say that President Sarkozy is very
keen on it and, in fact, when I go to Reunion Island, I am hoping to be able to take people who
are interested in that development to come along with me.
Mr Speaker: Time is over!20
MOTION
SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)
The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s
Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Energy and Public Utilities (Dr. R. Beebeejaun)
rose and seconded.
Question put and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS
First Reading
The Local Government (Amendment) Bill (No. XVIII of 2010) was read a first time.
Second Reading
THE APPROPRIATION (2011) BILL
(No. XVII of 2010)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Appropriation (2011) Bill (No. XVII of
2010).
Question again proposed.
The Minister of Tourism and Leisure (Mr N. Bodha): Mr Speaker, Sir, standing in
the National Assembly to make a speech on the Budget Speech of this year is a very great honour
and I would like to say what I feel after having gone through the speech. And there is one
paragraph which really has had a big impact on me. There has been a paragraph I am going to
end with that is what we call the Mauritian Dream, Mr Speaker, Sir. You will agree with me that
this time it is different.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the world is different, the crisis is different and the challenges are
different because when we see what is happening on the one hand, we see what is happening in21
the United States, what is happening in Europe and, on the other hand, if we were to think that
both Europe and the United States amount to about 600 million people who already in Asia have
600 million people in India and China who have the same purchasing power and they are
powering through the next years to come.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, the time is different for us because on this side of the House
we believe in politics of hope, in politics of nation-building, we believe in a dream, we do not
believe in politics of doom and gloom and in politics of, I would say, cynicism.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, hon. Hossen was right. The Opposition has been
oblivious of the international situation. He said so in one word. And this has been a pattern with
the Opposition. I have gone through the speeches of 1982, 1983, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Mr
Speaker, Sir. Each time the hon. Leader of the Opposition is Minister of Finance, he writes a
number of paragraphs on the international situation. And each time he is Leader of the
Opposition, he is totally oblivious of this reality and he always says one thing: le ministre des
finances a une grande marge de manoeuvre. This is a pattern and, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982 this
is what he wrote, presenting the Budget to the House –
“It is not an overstatement to say that we have inherited the worst economic situation
imaginable.”
This is what he wrote in presenting the Budget to the House -
“It is not an overstatement to say that we have inherited the worst
economic situation imaginable.”
That was in 1982.
(Interruptions)
No, this is what he has written. I am going to tell you what he writes on 1982/83. A few
months later.
(Interruptions)
But this is in the Hansard. I am just quoting from the Hansard.
Mr Speaker: Hon. Minister! I will allow you to make your point but don’t go deep into
it. This was 20 or 30 years ago. I was there.22
Mr Bodha: What I am saying is that it is a pattern. A few months later, we know what
happened, you were here. We know that episode of poêlon trop chaud and then Vishnu
Lutchmeenaraidoo became the Minister of Finance, and what did Paul Bérenger say then, le 30
août 1983 dans le Mauricien? C’est exactement les mêmes mots d’aujourd’hui, c’est-à-dire 27
ans plus tard -
«Un budget sans inspiration, sans imagination. »
This is what was said 27 years before, Mr Speaker, Sir.
(Interruptions)
That’s what I am saying that this time it is different when you come to this side of the
House and it is the continuity when it comes to the other side of the House. This is my question.
But I think that if there is one person who has summed up beautifully the philosophy and the
politics of cynicism of the Opposition is Lindsay Rivière and he did so on 12 October 1983, le
lendemain du budget -
“Je crains que cette lente dérive du MMM vers le recours systématique à
l’anticipation du pire ne prépare ce parti des lendemains difficiles marqués par
une amertume profonde et grandissante. »
This is also 27 years old. What I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that, as I said, this time
the whole thing is different and we expect the Opposition to prove to this country that they can
govern better. This is what they should show and prove to the people that they can do better
which they will never be able to do, Mr Speaker, Sir.
Let me come to another point, the macro economic reality of today, as I told you, Mr
Speaker, Sir. The third quarter for India’s growth was 8.9%. India’s growth for this year is going
to be nearly 9% at a time when Ireland is needing about more than 60 billion Euros to be bailed
out and, at a time, when Greece… we know what has happened with the crisis, and we know
that Portugal is following suit. Now, this is Europe with 350 million people, and this is the
continent where 71% of our tourists come from and 70% of our exports go to. So what do we do?
Therein lies the golden thread of this Budget what we have called the rebalancing for Mauritius
to be once again the star and key of the Indian Ocean in the third millennium, Mr Speaker, Sir.
As we have always said, history has changed but geography has not changed at all.23
But before coming to this, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say one word on leadership. That is
why I also said this time is different. Dr. Stephen Covey was in Mauritius and he made a
statement. It was on the billboards, leadership is a choice and it is not a position. What I am
saying here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that on this side of the House, it is a leadership of choice and on
the other side of the House it is the leadership of a position. Believe what I am saying, Mr
Speaker, Sir. What is the capacity to choose? The leader should choose the way he will charter
his team and his country. The hon. Prime Minister had to make a choice in May 2010. He had to
make a choice between the MSM and the MMM and he made the choice of a leader. That is
why I say it is a question of choice and there is one ingredient which underpins this budget and
which is on this side of the House and which the MMM has never had for almost 40 years. It is
the ingredient of stability and the choice of the hon. Prime Minister, when he chose the Alliance
de l’Avenir, when he chose the bleu, blanc, rouge, when he chose the MSM, was an alliance for
stability.
A Budget is nothing without the stability in a country, Mr Speaker, Sir. You will agree
with me. When we see the history of the MMM, there is only one mandate which the MMM has
been able to fulfill, that was between 2000 and 2005 and we all know why we stood five years.
1982, a few months, 1991 and 1993 a few months; 1995 and 1997 a few months and we had the
2000/2005. What I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is that on this side of the House, you have a
leadership of choice, to take the right decisions, and you have this ingredient of stability. People
in this nation chose for stability, vision and progress. That was what was at stake on 05 May
2010. I think, Mr Speaker Sir, that when you have the leadership - and I have said that
leadership is the ability and the wisdom to choose; it is the leadership of choice - then, you can
move forward and you can charter the way to a better world, Mr Speaker, Sir.
This is the world economic situation, as I have pointed it. What is happening in
Mauritius, Mr Speaker, Sir? We had the election, so that is the political landscape. As regards to
the economy, we had a growth in tourism of about 6%, we had a growth in EPZ for about 10%,
we had a growth in IT with some interesting progress in that sector, and we have a broad based
economy. But the question, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the leader of the Opposition comes to say –
“C’est un mauvais budget, très décevant. Il y a un manque d’inspiration et
d’imagination”24
We continue -
« Il y a un manque totale de souffle, sans souffle, sans innovation. C’est du
Sithanen sans Sithanen et du mauvais Sithanen. »
Mr Speaker, Sir, we knew one thing that there were beaucoup de prétendants au poste de
Premier ministre dans l’Opposition MMM. Il y en a eu beaucoup, je ne vais pas les nommer.
Mais ce qui est étrange, M. le président, c’est qu’aujourd’hui il y beaucoup de prétendants au
poste de ministre des finances !
You have the Leader of the Opposition who has made the first comments. You have
Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo who made his comments. Il y a Surendra Gokhool qui a fait des
commentaires comme prétendant comme ministre des finances. Il y a Kee Chong Li Kwong
Wing qui déclare : ‘c’est un budget qui ne répond pas aux attentes de la population’. Alors pour
le grand argentier des années 80, Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo, nous sommes plus proches de
l’enfer que du Mauritian Dream. Il le dit : le plus grand communicateur des années 80 qui a
présenté une série de budgets qui ont été largement applaudis ici. Aujourd’hui Vishnu
Lutchmeenaraidoo dit que depuis deux ans et demi personne ne m’écoute et il est temps pour
moi d’arrêter de parler. C’est le président de la commission, mais je crois que c’est une phrase
qui résume beaucoup de choses. Depuis quelques temps déjà on n’écoute plus les propositions du
MMM parce que c’est une sorte de litanie. It is a string of the same ideas and the ‘same ideals’
and what is happening Mr Speaker, Sir, aujourd’hui il dit sur le sujet duty free, « J’ajoute que le
projet duty-free n’a d’ailleurs plus sa raison d’être car la configuration économique a changé ».
Mais c’est vrai que la configuration économique a grandement changé. Il y a eu un
bouleversement extraordinaire dans le monde si on compare avec 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987 et
qu’aujourd’hui le projet duty free a une plus grande pertinence encore avec le hubbing, avec tout
ce que nous voulons faire. Mais comment dire que c’est le même ministre des finances qui a
présenté – vous étiez la – entre 1983 et 1988, au moins cinq ou six budgets, qu’il avait appelé
lui-même ‘no tax budget’. When he had presented the no tax budgets in Parliament, you know
what the Leader of the Opposition then said “The devil is in the detail”. Exactement la même
chose, c’est-à-dire it was not a no tax budget, the devil was in the detail.
Mr Speaker, Sir, ce que je dis moi concernant l’opposition, l’opposition doit se ressaisir
and I would like to say something else Mr Speaker, Sir. I have read what Jacques de Navacelle25
said: « Le rebalancing de l’économie est un pari difficile. C’est bien de dénoncer les principes
d’une philosophie mais on ne doit pas se leurrer. C’est bien d’avoir des idées mais quels sont les
moyens. » Now, if you were to listen to the economic gurus in our country and the media pundits
of our country since 1982, would there have been what we have in Mauritius today? I am going
to mention a few what Sydney Selvon wrote over years, what Lindsay Rivière wrote over years,
what Philippe Forget wrote over years, what Yvan Martial wrote over years. When we see what
Mauritius did from 1982 until now, what we have achieved; if you had listened to them…
Mr Speaker: The foundation was laid after independence!
Mr Bodha: Yes, but what has been achieved Mr Speaker, Sir. What I am saying is: our
pundits and our gurus what do they do? Today as well they are writing, but what I am saying is
the media pundit should write, the economic guru should make analysis, we should govern and
we should make the country progress. That is what I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir. You have what
I call a leadership of choice. Let me continue, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have been told que c’est un
budget qui n’a pas d’inspiration. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to give a number of reasons why
you have this vision of a new world, of a new dream. Economic diplomacy: we know now what
are the impact and its importance, Mr Speaker, Sir. When we see that a few weeks ago, the Prime
Minister of Britain, David Cameron goes to India with their high level delegation of many
Ministers; when we see Nicolas Sarkozy going to China; when we see President Obama going to
India and to the other dragons, what does that mean? It means that the world has changed. It
means that we have to have this progressive efficient economic diplomacy and that when there is
the budget; the first priority is economic diplomacy. Isn’t that visionary? Isn’t that sensible,
ambitious, daring, innovative? Mr Speaker, Sir, when we see the results, we had the sugar reform
package about Rs6 billion which Mauritius obtained from the European Union over the years,
Mauritius has been performing as regards the EU as one of the best ACP Member States . You
were Deputy Prime Minister, you are fully aware of this, be it for sugar, be it for the Convention
of Lomé, be it for the EPA, our economic diplomacy has been very efficient and has done a lot
of good to our country. Now as regards this economic diplomacy investing in it, investing in
terms of resources, investing in terms of people, investing in our chanceries, in our embassies
abroad, I think, is a brilliant idea because Mauritius has to be able to harness all the potential that
we have because we can be the link between Asia which is the continent of tomorrow, of this
decade and beginning of the millennium, of this century and Africa which will be the continent26
most probably after. We are so brilliantly placed to be able to do the link between Africa and
Asia and to continue to have our ties with Europe.
Mr Speaker, Sir, putting economic diplomacy in a budget speech as one of the top
priorities needs vision. The second visionary point of all this, Mr Speaker, Sir, relates to a
Ministry of Social Integration. Est-ce que c’est sans inspiration ? Est-ce qu’on peut dire que la
mise en place d’un ministère global consacré à la lutte contre la pauvreté n’est pas visionnaire?
The vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Finance put it beautifully in the Budget speech. The
Prime Minister wanted that we address the issue of poverty upfront. We have been trying to do
this for many years. We had the Trust Fund for Vulnerable Groups. We had a fund to alleviate
poverty, but it is the first time that we have a global Ministry to be able to address the issue of
poverty. Isn’t it visionary? To put the Leader of the PMSD who is a vice-Prime Minister who is
the number three of the Government on the front bench to harness this vision with a budget of
more than Rs1.9 billion, Mr Speaker, Sir. Isn’t this visionary? Est-ce que c’est fade? Est-ce que
c’est sans ambition ?
Mr Speaker, Sir, we all come from the shackles of poverty. We all know the
consequences of what we call the poverty trap. We all know that only education, training,
employment and empowerment can address this issue of poverty alleviation. There has been a
communiqué from the Ministry where, in the last four or five months, we have been given a list
of all that has been done. It is just unbelievable, because we have 7,000 families who need to be
addressed. When we say that we have the politics of hope and nation building, we have to build
an inclusive society, Mr Speaker, Sir, because economic progress without the inclusive society is
nothing. The fact that we have given a budget of almost Rs2 billion, with the hon. vice-Prime
Minister, Xavier-Luc Duval, shows the vision and commitment of this Government and shows,
as I said, cela ne peut pas être un budget sans imagination, un budget sans innovation. It is, in
fact, a Budget where the priorities have been set clearly.
Mr Speaker, Sir, you have been Minister of Health in the 1983 Government. You know
that it is a huge challenge. I have been talking to some people who have come to Mauritius, and
I said: ‘In this country, education is free up to the university; health is free up to the open heart
surgery; we have a social security system, and we have free transport for the elderly and the
students.’ Then, the question was: ‘How do you do it?’ How do we do it? Again, it is a27
question of choice and priority, because we want to have a welfare State where we can provide
our people with the best ingredients as regards to quality of life.
The hon. Prime Minister decides that we should have three specialised hospitals, namely
one for the old age, one for children and one for women. Today, we discussed the matter and,
most probably, as in the Budget, we are going to have three very sophisticated institutions to
cater for the elderly, for the children, and for the women. Isn’t that visionary? This is visionary,
because it addresses the specific problems of three categories of our people.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak later about the new dream, as I said. Let me now address the
issue of tourism.
(Interruptions)
Mr Speaker: If the hon. Minister would like, I can stop here for half an hour, and then he
can continue with his speech.
Mr Bodha: Alright!
At 4.42 p.m, the sitting was suspended.
On resuming at 5.01 p.m. with Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair.
Mr Bodha: I had said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we have the leadership, the vision
and the political stability, because without the political stability of an alliance, a Budget Speech
ne peut être que lettre morte. This stability is based on trust and competence. What was on offer
on 05 May 2010 was une alliance pour l’avenir. I explained, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in the
times that we have today in the world, we need this strong leadership, this clear vision and the
competence and the trust for a team to be able to deliver.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Speech, tourism has been placed very high on the
agenda. Let me just briefly say that this sector of the economy today in worth about one billion
Euros, about Rs40 billion. We have about 60,000 people who are involved directly and maybe
100,000 involved indirectly in the industry. This year we are going to have a 6 percent growth in
the number of arrivals and, most probably, a 6 to 7 percent growth on earnings. The industry
brings to the coffers of Government about Rs7 billion in terms of taxes and other benefits, Mr
Deputy Speaker, Sir.28
The whole question for us is: what do we do with this industry in the years to come? If
there is one industry where we can shape up a new Mauritius, where the paradigm shift can
really be applied, it is this industry where the issue of democratisation of the economy, opening
of opportunities can occur.
I have always said Mauritius is a country which has been made for tourism and our
people are people who have been made for tourism. But, M. le président, one thing is important,
et cela j’ai tenu à l’écrire – l’industrie du tourisme doit rendre au pays tout ce que le pays lui
donne. Cela est une grande question. L’industrie du tourisme doit rendre au peuple de Maurice
tout ce que le peuple lui donne et tout ce que le pays donne à l’industrie. This is something that
we can do and this has to be done now. That is why I said that this time it is different because a
lot of things are happening in the industry at this point in time. We have 600,000 to 700,000
people coming from Europe and about 200,000 coming from elsewhere. The traditional industry
is telling us three things: do promotion and marketing in Europe; make Air Mauritius fly
everywhere and have a Euro which is strong. This has been the predicament for the last 30 years
and they still want this predicament to continue. The question is: should we do it, Mr Deputy
Speaker, Sir?
I have tried to understand the economics of the industry. The turnover of l’Ile aux Cerfs
for one year is Rs500 m. The turnover of dolphin watching is Rs250 m; one plane costs us Rs7
billion. This is an industry which can be the flagship – le figure de proue de la nouvelle Ile
Maurice de partage des richesses. I am going to come to this. When we have been talking of the
Budget Speech, L’AHRIM made two comments, one was:”nous déplorons” - c’est un très beau
choix de mots – “nous déplorons l’augmentation des taxes sur les boissons alcoolisées”. I have
had a small enquiry about the prices of drinks in the hotels. A glass of juice is at Rs250, une
chopine de bière est à R300, un verre de vin est à R300!
(Interruptions)
This is happening today. Cela aura un impacte direct sur la consommation des boissons
alcoolisées dans l’hôtel. Deuxième commentaire on the passenger fee - l’Association des
Hôteliers et Restaurateurs s’élève également contre. Cette mesure intervient alors que les
packages vendues par les tours operateurs ont déjà été établis pour 2011. Sur un package qui
coûte en moyenne 1500 à 2000 Euros, cela fait une augmentation de 15 Euros. The question is:29
can we make this industry become the engine or pillar of a new economy? It can be done, Mr
Deputy Speaker, Sir, and it has to be done.
What has happened with our European paradigm? We came with the all-inclusive,
because nous sommes en train de récolter dans le même champ depuis des années et des années.
What has happened with the all-inclusive? We have ended up with Marmara, a chain which sells
Mauritius at less than 1000 Euros. At the last Top Resa Fair in Paris, there was an advert of
Mauritius in the toilettes of Marmara, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, selling Mauritius at less than
1000 Euros!
I praise the Leader of the MSM and the vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in
saying that we need a rebalancing. The time has come for this rebalancing, Mr Deputy Speaker,
Sir, but I do not know how far the industry wants to go in this new endeavour. But we have to
do it; we have to have an industry which, after some time, will have 50 percent from the Euro
market and 50 percent from the Dollar market because the people coming from Asia, China,
India, Russia, and Australia have another consumer pattern. They will not stay in the hotel. We
cannot continue to have a hotel industry, we need a tourism industry.
(Interruptions)
We need to move to a tourism industry, which will benefit the people of Mauritius and
will create the opportunities. Now, what is happening? Somebody coming in all inclusive with
their package of 1,200 Euros stays in the hotel. Il y a une phrase qu’on dit sur l’inclusive, c’est
que le touriste vient avec un Euro et un costume de bain et il ne change ni l’un ni l’autre !
The Indian tourist spends on an average of $1,700 per day. The Chinese spends $1,250
per day. So, we need to build this new industry. Now, what is happening? The traditional
industry itself had its own battery and armada marketing in Euro and they don’t want this
change. They don’t want this paradigm shift. They said: let us go there and do the marketing,
give us the plane and we will continue, but we cannot continue. So that’s where the thinking is
and I thank the vice-Prime Minister, for the new Budget given for emerging markets.
The emerging markets are the future of Mauritius and it fits in, in another paradigm, the
new hub that we want to have to make Mauritius. A plane cannot come from China or from
India, stops in an island in the Indian Ocean and then stays there and go back. We need to be theYou can also read
