First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Civil Appeal Bill (No. XXI of 2025) was read a first time. Second Reading THE FINANCE BILL (No. XVIII of 2025) & THE RODRIGUES REGIONAL ASSEMBLY (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. XIX of 2025) & THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL MEASURES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No. XX of 2025) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the following Bills – • The Finance Bill (No. XVIII of 2025); • The Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill (No. XIX of 2025), and • The Economic and Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. XX of 2025). Question again proposed.

Leader of the Opposition, you have the three Bills and now, you have the floor. (4.46 p.m.) Mr G. Lesjongard (The Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Le 5 juin dernier, c’est-à-dire, 50 jours de cela, le gouvernement de l’Alliance du changement avait présenté son tout premier budget et force est de constater que ceux qui ont fait confiance au grand défenseur de la liberté, ont vite déchanté après l’annonce des mesures. Ces amendements proposés dans ce Finance Bill vont accélérer l’appauvrissement de la population qui a déjà commencé depuis quelques mois. En cette période hivernale, Madame la présidente, ce gouvernement a jeté un froid parmi la population avec ce premier budget qui laisse un goût amer et qui est mal digéré par le peuple. Je qualifierai ce Finance Bill comme du ‘pain rassis’ et ‘une tasse de thé sans sucre et sans lait’, Madame la présidente. En passant, le sachet de lait se vend aujourd’hui à R 300.

(Interruptions)

Le ministre du Commerce devrait revoir le Mark-Up sur ce produit. Certains importateurs…

Members, he is only at the beginning.

… se tapent des millions sur le dos du peuple. Même la paire de dholl puri se vend à R 25 à certains endroits. An hon. Member: R 84 millions pour Sona Ori.

Madame la présidente, je vais maintenant aborder en détail les divers lois clés qui ont été amendées dans ce Finance Bill comme la Companies Act, the Finance and Audit Act et l’Income Tax Act. Ce Finance Bill vient nous démontrer, encore une fois, qu’il y a un manque de coordination entre ce gouvernement et le service public et je vais citer quelques exemples – la mauvaise gestion du dossier du Basic Retirement Pension, le méli-mélo du Fair Share Contribution et ce gouvernement a présenté des mesures sans prendre en considération leurs impacts sur la population et sur l’économie de notre pays. On a annoncé l’abolition de la Basic Retirement Pension pour ceux entre 60 et 65 ans sans aucune consultation et étude au préalable et après, on vient mettre en place des comités ministériels qui ont ensuite essayé d’atténuer les effets de cette mesure très impopulaire. Pas plus tard que la semaine dernière, deux organisations syndicales étrangères, la branche Africaine de l'International Trade Union Confederation et l’IndustriALL Global Union ont dénoncé avec force le fait que ce gouvernement a transgressé la Convention 144 du Bureau International du Travail dont Maurice est signataire. Cette Convention, Madame la présidente, concerne l’obligation de l’État à avoir des consultations tripartites. Ils dénoncent aussi cette décision unilatérale qui va directement impacter non seulement la vie des travailleurs mais aussi des pensionnaires de notre pays. Ils demandent tous au gouvernement de respecter cette Convention et de faire marche arrière sur le Basic Retirement Pension et d’engager au plus vite possible des consultations sur le sujet. Quelle honte pour ceux qui se disent proches des travailleurs et quelle honte pour ce gouvernement qui est composé des parties qui se disent être socialistes! Madame la présidente, la question qu’il faut se poser cette après-midi est la suivante – Est-ce un gouvernement qui travaille pour ou contre le peuple ? Même si le Finance Bill comporte certaines propositions positives, les fondamentaux de ce projet de loi et du budget n’ont pas changé et les vulnérables seront les plus touchés. Madam Speaker, I refer to section 39 of the Finance Bill which deals with the National Pension Act. Après les débats du premier Finance Bill de ce gouvernement, les membres de l’autre côté la Chambre vont voter en toute conscience l’abolition de la pension de vieillesse pour ceux âgés entre 60 à 65 ans. Permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, de faire référence à un extrait de la réponse de la PNQ que j’avais posé au ministre de la Sécurité sociale le 8 juillet dernier. Sa réponse démontre clairement l’agenda antisocialiste de ce gouvernement et aussi des conseillers au sein de ce gouvernement. Il avait dit, je cite – “Three proposals for Income Support were put forth to the Inter-Ministerial Committee: Rs5,000 Income Support, Rs7,500 Income Support, and Rs10,000 Income Support. And the Financial Advisers – I must stress – had recommended the amount of Rs7,500. However, Government having heard the people, having heard the difficulties surfaced through the recent weeks, has decided to provide the sum of Rs10,000 as Income Support.” Donc, à en croire certains membres de ce comité interministériel, une personne de 60 ans peut vivre avec R 5000 of income support. Selon ses conseillers, qui, aujourd’hui, – il faut le dire – touchent plus de R 100,000, une personne âgée de 60 ans peut vivre avec R 7500. Madame la présidente, avec l’augmentation du coût de la vie qui est de plus en plus inquiétante, l’inflation dans les années à venir, les R10 000 ne suffiront pas. Vous êtes en train de forcer les gens, même ceux qui sont malades, à travailler après leurs 60 ans pour pouvoir survivre. Let me now come to Section 53 which is related to the Social Contribution and the Social Benefits Act. Lors de son intervention, l’honorable Premier ministre, vendredi dernier, avait affirmé ceci, je cite – “The previous government had planned to end abruptly the different CSG allowances, namely the CSG Income Allowance, the Child Allowance, the School Allowance, the Maternity Care Allowance and the Pregnancy Care Allowance. As a compassionate Government, we are ensuring that the CSG allowances are renewed and gradually phased out over the next two years.” Madame la présidente, c’est l’ancien gouvernement qui avait mis en place en place ces allocations et il n’y avait aucun plan d’enlever ces allocations. Now, if you are really a compassionate Government, then, why are you phasing out the CSG? Quelle contradiction ! La CSG, Madame la présidente, avait sa raison d’être. C’était un système plus juste qui a permis au gouvernement de générer des milliards. Avec ces milliards, nous avons non seulement augmenté la pension, mais également introduit des allocations, par exemple, qui a permis à un citoyen mauricien qui touchait, allons remonter jusqu’à 2014, R 1500 par mois, de toucher graduellement R 20,000 comme revenu aujourd’hui ! Par exemple, le Child Allowance était une mesure réfléchie et sociale et dans un esprit d’alléger le budget d’un couple… An hon. Member: Koz reward money!

Sattar!

…ayant un projet de fonder une famille.

Poz PNQ lor reward money!

Tout comme d’autres allocations qui étaient bénéfiques à la population. Dans ce budget, malheureusement, un certain nombre de ces allocations seront soit réduites ou éventuellement éliminées. Vous allez encore nous sortir cette fameuse phrase, ‘la caisse vid’!

(Interruptions)

Pena nanye dan la caisse!

(Interruptions)

Pena mem fonds dan la caisse!

Mais, aujourd’hui, … An hon. Member: Zot inn pren la caisse la zot inn ale!

Zot inn devid li zot inn ale!

Aujourd’hui, Madame la présidente, …

(Interruptions)

Vous les…

Pas un seul Mauricien ne croit à votre argument que les caisses sont vides !

(Interruptions)

Sauf vous au sein de ce gouvernement.

Sonah-Ori !

Aujourd’hui, une très grande majorité de la population croit fermement que ce gouvernement protège les intérêts de ce qui possède au détriment de la classe moyenne.

(Interruptions)

Cette politique va malheureusement créer l’écart entre les riches et les pauvres. An hon. Member: Twa ki pe dir sa la? An hon. Member: Sonah-Ori! Sonah-Ori!

Car, Madame la présidente, nous savons tous les efforts qui ont été faits pour diminuer cet écart par l’ancien gouvernement. Pour soutenir cet argument, je fais référence au rapport publié par Statistics Mauritius en février 2025 sous le titre Poverty Analysis 2023. Ce même bureau de statistiques qui a été très critiqué par l’actuel gouvernement ! Ce rapport confirme – et c’est vérifiable – que pendant ces dix dernières années, nous avons grandement progressé dans la lutte contre la pauvreté dans le pays.

(Interruptions)

Et cela grâce aux allocations et à l’État providence.

(Interruptions)

Ce gouvernement sera responsable de l’appauvrissement de la population. An hon. Member: Dix ans, pani nay ba!

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, la valeur de la roupie dégringole, les prix des produits flambent, la pension et les allocations sociales disparaissent. Aujourd’hui, les PME sont taxées et les intérêts sur les prêts augmentent. Et nous ne sommes qu’au début du mandat de ce gouvernement ! Pendant ce temps, on nous demande, encore et encore, de serrer la ceinture. Mais jusqu’où devons-nous serrer la ceinture ?

(Interruptions)

Ori so kaba pena sintir! An hon. Member: Pena sintir!

Ori so sintir inn kasse!

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, les promesses faites dans le manifeste électoral des partis…

(Interruptions)

Pena sintir!

The more they shout, the more I speak louder, Madam Speaker!

No, I…

(Interruptions)

Les promesse faites dans le manifeste électoral des partis de gouvernement pour rétablir le pouvoir d’achat… An hon. Member: Sattar!

To pe krwar seki to pe dir la?

…ne sont que des illusions. An hon. Member: Sattar!

Vous avez tourné le dos au peuple et vous n’êtes plus un gouvernement crédible !

(Interruptions)

Assez !

Twa ki credible?

(Interruptions)

Je vais maintenant commenter la clause 4 du Finance Bill.

(Interruptions)

60-0 pe dir twa !

La Banking Act ainsi que the Bills of Exchange Act sont en train d’être amendés pour, je pense, améliorer le marché d’échanges. Ce gouvernement avait critiqué la politique de l’ancien régime à ce sujet.

(Interruptions)

Avec raison ! Avec raison !

Depuis leur prise de pouvoir, il y a eu cinq interventions de la Banque de Maurice sur le marché d’échanges pour un total de 70 millions de dollars. An hon. Member: Devaliz la Banque Maurice !

Et les résultats, le dollar ne cesse de grimper et l’euro est aujourd’hui à R 53, Madame la présidente. Chiffres record sous ce gouvernement. L’impact sur l’importation sera terrible et l’effet cascade sur les prix de nos supermarchés se fait déjà sentir. Concernant le secteur de la construction, la situation actuelle est très difficile. Difficile pour un secteur qui est passé pendant dix ans par deux lockdown et qu’ils ont survécu. Mais, c’est un secteur qui aussi a eu une croissance de l’ordre de 28 %, Madame la présidente. Aujourd’hui, ce secteur est aux abois de par les mesures annoncées dans le budget et ne tardera à licencier des employés. À la clause 7(3) du Finance Bill qui concerne le grading of contractors, le gouvernement décide de revenir à l’ancien système de grading des compagnies de construction. Ce système avait été revu et les contracteurs classés en trois catégories. Cela afin de permettre aux petits contracteurs d’avoir accès à des gros projets. Aujourd’hui, à cause de leur chiffre d’affaires et avec cet amendement, ces compagnies seront condamnées, si je peux utiliser ce terme, à tal lame à des gros contracteurs. Avec ce budget, ces mêmes gros opérateurs sont dans l’inquiétude vu l’absence d’investissement dans des gros chantiers pour les prochaines années à venir. La grande réforme de l’amélioration du trafic routier prévoyait plus d’accessibilité grâce à un réseau routier moderne et un système moderne de transport en commun. Qu’est-ce que le Finance Bill vient nous proposer pour diminuer le trafic routier : pas d’extension du métro, deux projets de routes qui seront mis en chantier dans trois ans et pour faire simple, rendre les voitures inaccessibles aux Mauriciens en augmentant la taxe sur les voitures. Je viens maintenant à notre secteur touristique et la question est : est-ce que ce gouvernement a une vision pour ce secteur ? Ce qu’on veut savoir de ce gouvernement est : quelle est la stratégie pour nous rendre plus compétitif vis-à-vis des pays comme les Seychelles et les Maldives ? L’introduction du tourist fee à clause 58 du Finance Bill va obliger les directeurs de tourist accommodation respectives à verser un tourist fee par nuitée pour chaque touriste ayant séjourné chez lui en euro, s’il vous plaît, chaque mois à la MRA. Pour les gros opérateurs, ce ne sera sans doute pas un souci parce qu’ils ont les moyens mais qu’en est-il aux petits opérateurs ? Pourquoi ne pas prélever ces sommes directement à leur arrivée. Le système de paiement préconisé dans le Finance Bill va définitivement promouvoir des magouilles. Certains opérateurs touristiques vont collecter le tourist fee et vont peut-être déclarer moins et dans la pratique ce sera difficile pour la MRA de vérifier les comptes. And to add insult to injury, Madame la présidente, comme si cela n’était pas suffisant d’augmenter les prix des billets d’avion entre Maurice et Rodrigues, cette fois comme mesure de redressement et de changement, que propose le Finance Bill à la clause 12 ? On va amender la Customs Tariff Act pour que tous ceux qui voyagent entre Maurice et Rodrigues paient la VAT sur les produits achetés dans les magasins Duty Free. Et maintenant, j’en viens au Fair Share Contribution. Dans le discours du budget, le Premier ministre avait annoncé une taxe de 10 % pour ceux qui touchent entre R 12 et R 24 millions par an et 20 % pour ceux qui touchent plus que R 24 millions par an, et comme par magie cette partie du discours du budget avait disparu quelques heures plus tard et aujourd’hui, c’est une Fair Share Contribution unilatérale de 15 % pour ceux qui touchent plus de R 12 millions annuellement soit une hausse de 5 % pour une catégorie et une baisse de 5 % pour une autre catégorie. Pourquoi ce changement ? Qu’est-ce qui ou plutôt qui a influencé cette décision ? Je laisse la population en juger par elle-même. Madame Speaker, previously this tax was known under a different name, that is, the Solidarity Income Tax and was repealed in January 2012 and the tax rate applicable was 10%. The Fair Share Contribution would include dividends received from a resident company and/or a cooperative society while dividends as item 1 of Sub-Part B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act is exempt and I expect Prime Minister to clarify this inconsistency when he intervenes later. There is also, Madam Speaker, a possibility of double taxation as dividend is derived from profit of the company which is subject to tax at 15%. Under the Fair Share Contribution, the same dividend is being taxed, now, in the hands of the shareholder. Now with regard to companies, the introduction for Fair Share Contribution for companies having chargeable income of more than Rs20 million, 5% applies to domestic companies and 2% to export companies and their Fair Share Contribution is to be paid in VAT returns on a quarterly basis. It will be an additional burden. It would have been much simpler to handle the Fair Share Contribution for those companies under the Advance Payment System of the income tax rather than declaring it in the VAT returns, Madam Speaker. With regard to PART XIID, dealing with financial assistance, I believe that this fiscal policy may have negative social implications or disproportionately affect certain group of people and I consider this measure also as an antisocial measure. I now refer to Section 150G which deals with the Housing Loan Relief Scheme. The decrease in the Housing Loan Relief Scheme could significantly impact low to medium income families who very often rely on such programmes for home ownership. This change will no doubt exacerbate housing affordability issues and make it more challenging for these groups to secure financing and achieve stable housing, Madam Speaker. When one takes a closer look at the new tax rate, and this is important, for example, individuals earning over Rs1 million will now automatically be placed in the 20% tax bracket. Under the previous tax structure, the 20% rate applied only to those with income not exceeding Rs2,390,000. This measure, and mark my words, will again affect the middle class, rendering them more vulnerable and contributing to their financial decline, Madam Speaker. Let me now come to section 61, concerning Value Added Tax. Madam Speaker, businesses with a turnover of taxable supplies amounting to Rs3 million are now required to apply for compulsory VAT registration, whereas the previous threshold was Rs6 million. I have said it and I say it again, this measure will negatively impact on businesses and in the majority of cases, that burden will be passed over to consumers. Pendant que la colère gronde et qu’il n’est plus apparent pour qui roule ce gouvernement, on va amender la Consumer Protection Act. Pour quoi faire ? Pour permettre de veiller sur les achats en ligne. C’est un pas en avant de légiférer les online transactions sur les réseaux sociaux, mais je pense qu’il faudrait rendre obligatoire l’enregistrement de tous les opérateurs ou individus qui font de la vente en ligne. Et j’attire l’attention de la Chambre que par exemple, concernant la vente en ligne des suppléments médicaux ou alimentaires, aujourd’hui il n’y a aucun contrôle. Madam Speaker, let me now come to section 50P concerning Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMT Tax). A Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax is being imposed on a resident parent or subsidiary of a large multinational enterprise to raise their effective tax rate to 15%. The OECD has developed the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE) to ensure that Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) having annual consolidated revenue of 750 million euros or more, are taxed on their global income at a minimum rate of 15%. If a resident subsidiary of such Multinational Enterprises is being taxed at an effective rate of less than 15% in a jurisdiction, the application of the GloBE Rules will imply that another tax jurisdiction – usually the jurisdiction where the multinational is headquartered – will collect the difference in tax. The QDMT is going to adversely impact on the attractiveness and competitiveness of the Mauritius International Financial Centre. It will also create frustrations among international financial centres, while at the same time, distort, I believe, diplomatic ties and bilateral relationships between Mauritius and countries in Europe where most of those Multinational Enterprises come from. The QDMT, as a disincentive, will hinder the relocation of MNEs headquartering and various other offshore structures in Mauritius and there is significant risk of many existing offshore corporate structures exiting Mauritius towards a more attractive international financial centre such as for example, Dubai or Singapore. Madame la présidente, permettez-moi de terminer sur cette note. Le Finance Bill sera malheureusement voté et les mesures budgétaires seront mises en place. Je ne vais pas retourner sur les effets de ces mesures sur la population dans son ensemble. S’il y a une chose – et je pèse mes mots quand je le dis – que la population doit prendre en considération, c’est que ce projet confirme le démantèlement de l’Etat providence dans notre pays. An hon. Member: Akoz zot inn kokin!

Madame la présidente, un vote en faveur de ce texte de loi va graver les noms de ceux qui ont voté pour, comme ceux qui ont arraché la pension des mains d’honnêtes travailleurs et qui va plonger la classe moyenne et les plus vulnérables dans une profonde pauvreté. Vous allez condamner des centaines de milliers de familles mauriciennes à vivre dans l’endettement et la précarité pendant votre mandat et j’espère…

Pas moi !

J’ai le souhait que vous allez en prendre conscience rapidement et revoir certaines de ces décisions. J’en ai terminé, Madame la présidente.

Merci. Merci beaucoup, hon. Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Minister of Labour! (4.28 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, before answering to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, may I start by commending the hon. Prime Minister today, for doing away with the practice that was established by the MSM Government, which is to lump all type of legislation in the Finance Bill, and that went against the ruling delivered by the late hon. Kailash Purryag on 21 July 2009. And I think it is worth reminding what he said – “In the light of the foregoing principles and practices, I rule that the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should not contain provisions intended to make permanent changes in existing laws unless they are essentially connected with national finance, or, are consequential upon, or incidental to the taxation proposals and may also include provisions that are sufficiently closely related to those matters within the spirit and scope of the Bill as defined in the long title.” And this is why today, we have a Finance Bill which deals with all financial measures announced in the budget and then we have another Miscellaneous Provision Bill. The MSM did the contrary and as a result, I remember – and the hon. Leader of the Opposition was in Cabinet then – we used to have Finance Bill amending 90+ legislations in 300 pages long document, which no one read most of the time, only to find out that surreptitiously, certain amendments had been proposed and voted and not sufficiently debated in this House. So, we are doing away with this practice, Madam Speaker, and that is welcomed. L'honorable leader de l’Opposition parle d’appauvrissement de la population. Où étiez- vous lorsque votre gouvernement a donné R 89 millions à Madame Sonah-Ori? Ça ce n’est pas l’appauvrissement ? Quand votre gouvernement a donné plus de R 150 millions à M. Hajee Abdoula, ça ce n’était pas l’appauvrissement de la population ? Les millions donnés à Maradiva, pas d’appauvrissement ?

Milliards!

Les milliards donnés…

(Interruptions)

…à ceux qui sont tout autour, qui ont bénéficié du MIC et les R 160 millions de reward money. Donc, vous êtes très mal placé, M. l’honorable leader de l’opposition pour parler de l’appauvrissement de la population. Vous parlez des changements qu’on a effectués suite au budget. A l’annonce du budget, on a mis sur pied deux comités. Oui, effectivement on a écouté, on a trouvé qu’il y a certaines personnes qui sont les plus vulnérables – • les femmes au foyer ; • les personnes qui ont travaillé trop dure dans la vie ; • les gens qui touchent moins de R 10 000, et • les familles qui touchent moins de R 20 000. Et on a fait un effort. On a fait un effort et on va leur donner un special allowance de R 10 000. Qu’y a-t-il de méchant dedans ? Pourquoi prenez-vous objection à cela? Bien sûr si demain on a les moyens de faire plus, on va faire plus, mais aujourd’hui vous avez laissé les caisses vides. Pourquoi dites-vous que les caisses n’étaient pas vides? Peut-être que je dois vous rafraîchir la mémoire et vous dire ce que votre propre ministre avait annoncé dans cette Chambre. An hon. Member: Savat dodo?

Le ministre Savat dodo, le ministre des Finances, en réponse à une question parlementaire du 24 octobre 2023, je cite – « M. le président, le montant total déboursé pour le paiement de ces prestations est d'environ R 25 milliards. Il ne reste donc rien par rapport aux contributions de la CSG. » Je le redis – « Il ne reste donc rien (…). » Quand il ne reste rien, cela veut dire que la caisse est vide !

(Interruptions)

Votre propre ministre des Finances a dit, qu’il a tout balayé. Tout pris !

Pena la caisse!

Les R 25 milliards qu’il a ponctionnés des salariés sous la Contribution sociale généralisée…

La caisse nay ba!

…il a tout balayé! C’est pourquoi on vient dire que la caisse est vide. Et, aujourd’hui, vous avez l’audace une fois de plus de remettre en question le fait que la caisse n’est plus vide. Quand les autres parlent du fait qu’il n’y a plus de caisse, c’est parce que quand le Premier ministre avait répondu aux questions, il a montré que ce n’étaient pas R 25 milliards qui avaient été dépensés, c’est aussi R 3,3 milliards et R 7 milliards en plus. C’est-à-dire un total de R 10,2 milliards en plus de la CSG qui n’avait plus rien. Donc, vous avez pris la caisse aussi et vous êtes partis avec. Madame la présidente, le leader de l’opposition nous parle de Fair Share Contribution et il nous dit qu’on avait annoncé dans le budget qu’il y aura une contribution de 10 % pour ceux qui touchent entre R 12 millions et R 24 millions, alors que ceux qui touchent plus de R 24 millions auront à payer 20 %. C’est vrai, c’était dans le discours budgétaire. Mais ce qu’il ne dit pas, c’est qu’au paragraphe 272, il est écrit, et je cite – “272. A high-income earner, earning annual net income exceeding Rs 12 million, inclusive of dividend income, will be required to pay a Fair Share Contribution at the rate of 15 percent of his chargeable income (…).” Donc, c’était déjà annoncé que ce sera 15%. Oui, il y avait une contradiction. Ailleurs, c’était 10 % et 20 %, mais on ne change pas les règles du jeu. On vient juste clarifier ce qui a été déjà dit au paragraphe 272 du discours budgétaire. Le leader de l’opposition nous dit qu’on va taxer deux fois les dividendes. Mais, là aussi, il a la mémoire courte. Lorsqu’il était dans le gouvernement en 2022 et lorsque le gouvernement d’alors avait introduit la Solidarity Levy, la Solidarity Levy incluait les dividendes. Si c’était plus de R 3 millions, vous deviez payer la Solidarity Levy de 15 % en plus sur les dividendes. Qu’est-ce qu’ils ont fait une année plus tard, en 2023 ? Sous pression du gros capital, ils ont aboli la Solidarity Levy. Et, aujourd’hui, quand on met un Fair Share Contribution, ils nous pointent du doigt et ils nous disent qu’on est en train de protéger les riches ? Alors qu’en 2023, l’ancien gouvernement avait aboli la Solidarity Levy. Le leader de l’opposition nous parle de la stratégie qu’on a pour le secteur touristique. Je ne vais pas répondre à la place de l’honorable ministre du Tourisme, mais comme tout le monde, tous les Mauriciens ont lu dans les journaux aujourd’hui que l’arrivée touristique du 1er janvier 2025 au 15 juillet 2025 s’élevait à 722 184 touristes, alors que pour la même période, l’année dernière, c’était 700 880. Donc, comparé à votre gouvernement, notre gouvernement est en train d’augmenter le nombre d’arrivées touristiques. Donc, pourquoi vous dites qu’on est en train de tuer le secteur et quelle est notre stratégie touristique ? En tout cas, c’est ‘une stratégie’ qui marche parce qu’on a plus de touristes aujourd’hui qu’on avait sous votre gouvernement.

(Interruptions)

Madame la présidente, sur le sujet de l’income tax, je dois vous dire que le leader de l’opposition est un peu confus parce que, d’une part, il nous dit qu’on ne taxe pas suffisamment les riches, qu’on fait la part des choses pour les riches. Et puis, dans la même phrase, il nous dit : ‘Ah, vous êtes en train de tuer la classe moyenne. Vous êtes en train d’imposer trop de taxes à la classe moyenne.’

Pa’nn konpran nanye!

Comme l’avait dit l’honorable Premier ministre la dernière fois, vous ne pouvez pas tout avoir. Je ne vais pas reprendre l’expression qu’il avait dite avec la crémaillère, mais il faut faire un choix. Il faut faire un choix dans la vie. Le choix qu’on a fait, Madame la présidente, et c’est bon de le rappeler, se trouve à la page 54 du discours budgétaire au paragraphe 295 – “(…) raising the tax exemption threshold by Rs 110,000, that is, by 28 percent. (…) removing 44,000 individuals from the tax net.” 44,000 personnes qui payaient la taxe, sous le gouvernement MSM, ne payent plus la taxe sous ce gouvernement. “(…) 75,000 individuals earning between Rs 500,000 and Rs 1 million in a year will actually be paying less income tax; and As a result of the measures I have introduced, 81 percent of employees in our country will not pay any income tax.” C’est cela la réforme fiscale : exonérer un maximum de personnes. 80 % des travailleurs de ce pays ne vont pas payer la taxe et ceux qui ont les moyens, ceux qui touchent plus de R 12 millions par an, ça va être imposable, 15 % additionnel à partir des R 12 millions. Donc, moi, j’ai absolument aucun problème avec la fiscalité. Au contraire, je pense que c’est une très bonne chose pour les personnes au bas de l’échelle en termes de fiscalité. L’honorable leader de l’opposition n’a pas parlé du Fair Share Contribution concernant les entreprises, mais il est de mon devoir de faire le ressortir parce qu’il y avait eu tellement d’articles négatifs dans la presse et sur les réseaux sociaux à l’effet que soi-disant le gouvernement était en train de revoir sa copie pour favoriser les entreprises. Que nenni, Madame la présidente. Jamais ! On n’a pas touché au Fair Share Contribution que vont payer les entreprises, les compagnies. Ils continueront à payer ce qui a été annoncé dans le budget, jusqu’à 5 % pour les compagnies qui touchent plus de R 24 millions. La seule clarification qu’on a faite, c’est concernant les banques. On a clarifié que le montant maximum que les banques vont payer – parce qu’elles payent aussi d’autres taxes et pas que le Fair Share Contribution – c’est 35 % sur le bénéfice qu’elles font avec les transactions de domestic banking. C’est tout. C’est le seul changement qu’on ait fait par rapport à ce qui a été dit dans le budget. Cela a été fait pour clarifier. Aucun backpedalling, aucun retournement de veste malgré la campagne mensongère qui a été en dehors de cette Chambre. Madame la présidente, j’ai souri parce que je m’attendais à ce que le leader de l’opposition, visiblement mal renseigné…

Il est dépassé !

…tombe dans le piège du Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax.

Il ne comprend pas !

Non, il crie au scandale, la fin de notre secteur offshore. Grand défenseur du secteur financier ! Mais ce qu’il ne dit pas, Madame la présidente, c’est quand il était au Cabinet, le ministre des Finances dans le Finance Bill de 2022, qu’est-ce qu’ils ont fait ? Ils ont, en 2022, déjà introduit dans le Income Tax Act, la notion de qualified domestic minimum top-up tax. Ils avaient déjà parlé de Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules developed by OECD. Donc, aujourd’hui, ce qu’on est en train de promulguer, c’est un concept qu’ils avaient déjà mis dans la loi, dans le Income Tax Act, depuis 2022, et pourquoi l’ont-ils fait ? Parce qu’on est sous pression des organisations internationaux : l’OCDE, le G20, qui forcent à tous les pays d’avoir un minimum de 15 % – qu’est-ce que cela veut dire ? À Maurice, le taux général est de 15 %, mais il y a plusieurs pays et il y a plusieurs entreprises qui paient moins de 15 %, par exemple : les global business companies, certains d’entre eux paient seulement 3 %. Donc, avec cette loi qui a été adoptée par plusieurs pays, notamment l’Afrique du Sud, l’Angleterre, si vous avez une multinationale sud-africaine, par exemple, qui investit à Maurice et qui paie seulement 3 % de taxe, et bien, en Afrique du Sud, elle va payer 12 %. Donc, nous, à Maurice, on a un manque à gagner de 12 % de taxe parce que sous cette convention qu’on appelle le Pillar Two, le pays d’origine va taxer la différence entre 15 % et le montant qu’il paie à Maurice. Donc, pourquoi renier notre souveraineté sur des 12 % de taxe ? Pourquoi les donner à l’Afrique du Sud ? C’est cela que cette loi vienne dire : c’est que maintenant on pourra, à Maurice – dans les cas exceptionnels des multinationales qui ont un chiffre d’affaires de 650 millions d’euros – les taxer jusqu’à 15 %. Bien sûr, on a écouté ce que le secteur financier nous a dit mais dans le projet de loi lui-même, comme l’a si bien expliqué l’honorable Premier ministre lorsqu’il a introduit ce projet de loi, on a dit qu’à travers des regulations on pourra exonérer certaines entreprises. On a dit qu’à travers des regulations on pourra avoir des mesures pour contrecarrer l’effet que cette taxe d’un minimum de 15 % aura sur les entreprises. On est conscient et on a eu des discussions avec les capitaines de l’industrie. On s’est assis, on a parlé, et avant de passer le projet de loi, ils ont dit qu’ils sont d’accord. Ils sont d’accord, il y a un dialogue, ils vont parler avec le ministre des Secteurs financiers, ils vont parler avec le Junior Minister des Finances et à travers des regulations, s’il y a lieu d’exonérer certaines sociétés de cette taxe minimum, on le fera. Madame la présidente, je crois que j’ai répondu à la plupart des points soulevés par l’honorable leader de l’opposition. J’aimerais juste faire un dernier point sur quelque chose qui est dans le Finance Bill mais que, malheureusement, le Premier ministre, il y avait tellement de choses à dire, n’a peut-être pas assez mis l’accent dessus. Je veux en parler parce que c’est quelque chose qui nous tient, au sein d’un gouvernement, très à cœur. Vous vous souviendrez, Madame la présidente, que ceux qui bénéficient d’une pension : qui sont en retraite ou bien qui ont un handicap, des veuves, des orphelins, cette pension est automatiquement coupée s’ils passent plus de six mois en dehors de Maurice. Et dans le discours budgétaire, le Premier ministre a déjà annoncé que cette règle ne s’appliquera plus dans les cas des personnes qui suivent des traitements à l’étranger. Mais après l’annonce de cette mesure budgétaire, on a reçu des représentations de la part des personnes qui reçoivent une allocation. En particulier, il y a une personne qui est aveugle, qui est une fille et parce qu’elle est en train de poursuivre ses études à l’étranger, en France, elle ne peut pas être physiquement à Maurice. Et malheureusement, les autorités ont appliqué la loi et ont décidé de lui réclamer la différence de toutes les contributions qui lui ont été faites par le ministère de la Sécurité sociale alors qu’elle étudiait à l’étranger. Donc, elle s’est dit ce n’est pas possible! As a caring Government, le Premier ministre est venu maintenant dans le Finance Bill avec une provision : non seulement les personnes qui sont à l’étranger pour des raisons médicales mais aussi celles qui sont en train d’étudier à l’étranger, à elles aussi on ne leur coupera pas leur pension si elles ne sont pas à Maurice pour plus de six mois. Et on est allé encore plus loin, et on a dit que pour avoir un peu plus de flexibilité, on va permettre à celles, for good cause shown, une fois ; on ne va pas appliquer la règle si elles viennent nous prouver, good cause shown, pourquoi elles n’ont pas pu rester plus de six mois à Maurice – donc, for a one-off. Et moi, je pense que cette mesure méritait d’être soulignée. Avec ceci, Madame la présidente, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. Hon. Members, I think we can have a break now for tea and we will come back in 30 minutes. At 4.48 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.34 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, hon. Fourth Member for Rodrigues, Mr Edouard. The floor is yours. (5.34. p.m.) Mr J. Edouard (Fourth Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for giving me the floor to intervene for the first time on the Finance Bill. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will comment on some Acts that will be amended in the Finance Bill, together with the amendments proposed to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act. We have been warned of the technicalities of these amendments. So, I will try to be cautious. I will try my utmost best not to be out of subject. I will comment on some of these amendments from a layman perspective before coming to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act. First, the Construction Industry Authority Act. The amendment in connection with government-owned companies; I think it is important. You know, contrary to popular perception, when properly managed, government-owned companies help a lot in saving money and creating jobs. The new grading of contractors gives better opportunities to small contractors who are otherwise swallowed by large contractors. It might be a good thing for Rodrigues’ contractors indeed. We also note the amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Protection (Price and Supplies Control) Act, Essential Commodities Act, Fair Trading Act, Higher Purchase and Credit Sale Act and these amendments are most welcomed. Empowering authorised officers will no doubt ensure better control of the widespread abuses we are now witnessing and this will benefit consumers. The amendment in connection with online transactions is also very important and maybe more control is needed. So many scammers, fake traders and fake goods are up there. Before taking the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act, I would like to say one word about the National Savings Fund Act. I think there is some confusion about the retirement age of employees. I have seen in the press, some are saying that with the amendment, an employee will no longer be able to retire at the age of 60 or before. I don’t know if I have missed something. I understand that with the amendment, section 2 (b) (ia), is now, I quote – “in respect of a person aged 60 or more, retirement, or otherwise ceasing to work, on or before [the pension age].” Perhaps this needs more clarification because you know the BRP was previously known as the Old Age Pension. When it has become the Basic Retirement Pension, it is being confused with the retirement pension of employees. So, maybe the confusion is there. I don’t know, maybe this needs clarification.

I am sorry. One is contributory and the other one is not.

Yes.

One is universal, the other one is contributory.

Yes.

If I may.

Madame la présidente, maintenant je viens au Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act. Avec cette loi qui consacre l’autonomie de Rodrigues, une nouvelle relation a été introduite dans la république; une relation de partenariat qui s’élève des spécificités d’une partie de la république. Madame la présidente, c’est dans l’exercice de la gestion qu’on acquiert la maturité. Rectifier le tir, se donner le moyen pour atteindre les objectifs fixés fait partie de la normalité qu’on a la responsabilité de gouverner. Parfois cela ne va pas sans souffrance et humiliation. Madame la présidente, certains à Rodrigues font preuve de démagogie en faisant croire que les amendements proposés par l’honorable Premier ministre portent atteint à l’autonomie ; tout en imputant cette soi-disant atteinte à l’autonomie aux actuels gouvernants régionaux. Comme l’a souligné l’honorable Premier ministre, ces amendements interviennent dans le cadre de la réintroduction du PBB (Performance Based Budgeting) pour que Rodrigues soit aligné sur l’amendement de la Finance and Audit Act, voté le 18 mars dernier. Madam Speaker, the present Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill has the same Explanatory Memorandum as the Finance and Audit (Amendment) Bill of March 2025; to provide for, I quote – “(a) the introduction of Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB) so as to – (i) link funds with results and outcomes, and improve operational efficiency in the administration of Rodrigues; and (ii) enforce greater fiscal responsibility, accountability and transparency; (b) the preparation of estimates of expenditure based on programmes and sub-programmes on a 3-fiscal year rolling basis, specifying the resources to be allocated, the outcomes to be achieved and outputs to be delivered.” Madame la présidente, on se rappellera que ce n’est pas la première fois qu’un tel amendement est apporté à la Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act et c’était justement pour introduire le Programme-Based Budgeting en 2009, un concept introduit sous l’actuel Premier ministre, le PBB qui a été abandonné après et qui a été réintroduit cette année. Madam Speaker, the Additional Stimulus Package (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. I of 2009), made provision for the introduction of the PBB in Rodrigues in 2010 and this required an amendment to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act. We can read in the Hansard, Debate of 07 April 2009, I quote – “The draft amendments to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act have received the concurrence of the RRA in accordance with Section 75E of the Constitution. A certificate to that effect from the Chairperson of the RRA addressed to the hon. Speaker has been laid on the Table of the National Assembly on 31 March 2009.” Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Prime Minister for consulting the Executive Council of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly, which he said is agreeable to the amendments. The hon. Prime Minister did it though he had no obligation to do so. If my reading is correct as far as section 75E of the Constitution is concerned and the fact that he has the majority to go without. I think PBB is maybe the best thing to do. It focuses on results, on activities completed and benefits for end users. Fundings are allocated based on predetermined results related to specific objectives. Progressive measure to demonstrate proper goals are being met. It is important to know how government policies translate into spending. It is about transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. Wastes must be eliminated. We must ensure that funds are allocated to programmes that deliver value for money. Madame la présidente, le PBB appelle à la responsabilité et à la transparence. La transparence accroit la confiance du public en s’assurant des résultats tangibles. Ces amendements arrivent dans un contexte bien précis. I think that it is imputing motives to the hon. Prime Minister; motives that are unwarranted to think these amendments have other objectives than to introduce the PBB. Ces amendements, Madame la présidente, en appellent certainement d’autres pour éliminer les obstacles qui sabotent l’implementing capacity de Rodrigues et influencent les résultats. Ceci n’étant peut-être pas le forum approprié, nous aurons certes l’occasion d’y revenir. Je ne vais pas être plus long, Madame la présidente. Mes chers collègues, je vous remercie.

Merci. Hon. Fourth Member for Port-Louis North and Montagne Longue! (5.45 p.m.) Mr A. Duval (Fourth Member for Port-Louis North & Montagne Longue): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this must be the first time I think in the parliamentary history that the Finance Bill is being introduced in such haste.

Ein?

Such haste between the moment it is introduced to the House, only one week’s notice to amend no less than 60 pieces of legislations.

(Interruptions)

Of course, you will no doubt note haste because important documents, including the explanatory notes and existing legal provisions, were only furnished to the House on 25 July, a few days ago. You may know, Madam Speaker, that for previous Finance Bills, including the last one, at least 12 days were given to hon. Members to study it together with the accompanying documents. To make matters worse, Madam Speaker, this Finance Bill is riddled with errors. Numerous provisions do not even tally with the explanatory notes. I will come to them. It is an inescapable sign of the amateurism that has plagued this entire budgetary exercise. Even more, Madam Speaker, the Budget Speech, as read by the hon. Prime Minister on Budget Day, differs materially from the actual content of the Finance Bill on several key issues. It begs the question: who prepared the Finance Bill? I will ask: Are these the so-called Senior Advisers that have seen their pay rise from Rs90,000 to now a staggering Rs230,000, plus 25% gratuity, amounting to Rs287,000 a month? Are they the ones who have prepared it?

(Interruptions)

If they have, they should be let go!

(Interruptions)

The very spirit, Madam Speaker, of reading a Budget Speech…

To pe insilte lintelizans banla!

(Interruptions)

…to the nation is to bring hope to showcase well thought, coherent policy to inspire confidence. Instead, this budget and this Finance Bill have done the opposite. They have generated confusion, contradiction and uncertainty. Take, for example, clause 29 of the Finance Bill. We talk of property taxes on foreign investors. The initial policy regarding foreign investment, as it was read in the Budget Speech and as it was contained in the Annexes, was far worse than what was actually made out in the Finance Bill. I had myself raised the alarm over the introduction of a 30% capital gain tax on the transfer of residential property to non-citizens which is found on page 42 of the Annex, at paragraph 23 (b)(iii) in addition to the doubling of land transfer tax and registration duty for promoters and foreign buyers. These measures were to come into force immediately upon the publication of the Finance Act without any transition period – a reckless move to destabilise the property market overnight. There were countless number of applications, hundreds on the desk of the EDB waiting for approval. Applications where commitments were already done, and these persons were now made to accept such horrendous increases overnight. An hon. Member: Check your facts!

I checked my facts because they were to take effect as from publication of the Gazette. This is how it was read in the Annex.

(Interruptions)

I stated the relevant paragraph; I invite hon. Members to go and read it. So, they were to come immediately upon the publication of the Finance Act. So, we scared away investors. We detailed a hostile policy to foreign investment. We stated, ‘We will tax you. We will introduce capital gains as a record 30%. We do not care if your application has sat for 8-9 months on the EDB’s desk. You are also going to be made to foot the Bill.’ That is what was stated. Fortunately, it has been changed. But it is the first time that a budgetary exercise, instead of promoting a reasoned fiscal policy and measures that tie the nation together, had, in fact, the contrary effect. It is a good thing then that the Government has backtracked on this. It is a good thing that the capital gains have been scrapped and are no longer part of Clause 29. And it is a good thing that a one-year moratorium has been given to those persons. A one-year moratorium has been given under Clause 29. It takes effect as from 01 July 2026, and not as from the publication of the Gazette. You will go and read for yourself. But, Madam Speaker, the damage has been done, and these changes come too late. The confidence has been shaken already. So, what was the point of frightening off foreign investors? Many have been frightened. We cannot really just quantify how many, but many have been frightened from the initial announcement to now the Finance Bill. The question is why? Madam Speaker, even more concerning is that under Clause 44 which concerns the Non- Citizens (Property Restriction) Act, it had been stated at paragraph 76 of the Annex that Government would ban, not just the acquisition, but also the disposal of any property and, therefore, would ban the sale of any property already owned by a foreign individual if same was located on State Land or pas géométriques. In other words, foreigners who had legally purchased property would now be barred from selling it, a measure bordering on expropriation. And it seemed that the Ministry of Finance was not even aware of the investment, promotion and protection agreements that it has itself signed on behalf of Mauritius with no fewer than 29 countries, binding treaties, designed to encourage and protect foreign investment, particularly from any form of the depravation or arbitrary restriction. How could you have ever thought that this would be reasonable or legal? The Budget, Madam Speaker, would have been illegal and this is why I say: “amateurism”. A disregard for legal obligations which has now greatly shocked that market – a prominent market which Mauritius, as I stated before, relies heavily on. Let me turn to Clause 39 of the Finance Bill, Madam Speaker, with regard to the National Pensions Act. You will no doubt have noticed, Madam Speaker, that changes are being brought to the National Pensions Act – changes which, you might be surprised, do not tally between the Finance Bill and the explanatory note. If you look at the explanatory note at page 49, you will see that the coming into effect of the BRP to the age of 65 is scheduled for 01 September 2030. In the Finance Bill, this clearly states, September 2033 and this in itself has been contrary to what has been announced either in the Budget, in the annexes, the various and numerous statements on the issue, the various replies to PNQs that it was meant to take effect on 2030, and now, it is 2033. What has happened, Madam Speaker, is that now the years have been staggered to 2 years for every year that the retirement is going up. But, Madam Speaker, how can it be that the explanatory notes provided by the Ministry of Finance are different to the Finance Bill? How can it be? Such a mistake on such an important issue has made its way through such an important exercise! So, not only does it contradict the explanatory note, but the Finance Bill, also, on that issue, contradicts previous Government announcements, talks about oversight. And, Madam Speaker, even though this last-minute amendment to stagger the increase in eligibility age has been made, it was not the original intention but they were simply compelled due to mass public demonstration to change their tune somewhat. But, let us be clear, Madam Speaker, this is still not acceptable, this is still not what was promised by your Alliance, by this Government, to the people of Mauritius. Be that as it may, Madam Speaker, the public does not care whether this increase has been staggered to after 2023, 2033 or 2030. What the people expected, and rightly so, was for Government to show some of the sacrifices themselves – to cut back on overseas travels and their per diems …

(Interruptions)

which have reached record level, to reduce on the purchases of new cars and to roll back the astronomical 155% increase…

(Interruptions)

… in senior advisers’ salaries and these excesses have, it seems, become une source d’embarras for the Government. An hon. Member: Inn bien tape apre…

There is no way that persons who have worked their whole life would accept to be deprived of five years of full pension – Rs1 million not even counting the annual increases with inflation. So, how would you think that they would have accepted this? How? I could talk, Madam Speaker, of the latest episode referred today, the Rs1.1 million…

Sonah Ori to pa dir?

… on the Pan-African Parliament that has been wasted, I could talk about how my PQ was unanswered, but for lack of time, I will move on.

(Interruptions)

Let me come to an important issue, the tourist tax, Clause 58 which is said to come into operation on 01 October 2025. The first issue I would like to raise is that there is an issue of drafting. At Section 39B the word “accommodation” is missing after “tourist” at the first paragraph. I think this should be corrected, obviously, but more importantly, Section 39D(1)(b) requires managers or owners of tourist accommodations to remit the tourist fee electronically in Euro to the MRA. As you know, Madam Speaker, payments are often made in MUR, USD, South African rands (ZAR) to these tourist accommodations.

I am giving you one more minute.

The first issue is foreign exchange cost. The second, given that it has to be transferred in Euros, commercial banks charge an astronomical fee of €30 per transfer. So, if you are paying, for example, for 10 nights for one person, €30, you would pay the same in the transfer fee because the MRA’s bank is at the SBM. So, the question is, now, how will the MRA make sure that this is workable in practice? Now section 39C on the registration of tourist accommodations, it creates another hurdle. As the hon. Minister of Housing and Lands will no doubt agree, many accommodations, today, offering services of tourist accommodations are still waiting for their leases to be converted from residential to industrial. That bars them from being granted a licence of tourist accommodation licence from the Tourism Authority and that is to no fault of their own. I am concluding. I will suggest to go as per what the hon. Junior Minister for Tourism has said himself, has proposed, which is a good idea, that in the interim we grant those persons a provisional licence whilst they wait for their conversion which takes years, which has taken years under every government anyway, so that they be given a provisional licence or temporary licence so that they may have an insurance which will cover the liability, and so that they may be in accordance with law. It is not my idea; it is one of the hon. Junior Minister of Tourism. I think Government should follow; it is not… I am concluding, unfortunately. To conclude Madam Speaker, there must be many more mistakes, inconsistencies or plain contradictions in the Finance Bill which I have not seen for myself given the rush, but as with many things under this Government, time will tell.

Thank you very much, hon. A. Duval. Hon. F. François is going to speak. (6.00 p.m.) Mr F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I will briefly comment on two specific clauses of the Finance Bill (No. XVIII of 2025) namely, Clause 18 which amends the Finance and Audit Act in relations to Rodrigues and Clause 54 which amends the Statistics Act. The majority of my intervention will focus on the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment Bill) (No. XIX of 2025). Clause 18 of the Finance Bill amends Section 19 to add a new subsection 3A to the Finance and Audit Act requiring that the financial statements be prepared in accordance – very important – with the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). The Director of Audit, in his Annual Report 2023-2024, stated that – “In view of the challenge to move to accrual-based accounting, the IMF recommended a phased approach for the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (RRA) transition to accrual IPSAS, and a roadmap was established, which the RRA did not comply with. It is recommended that the RRA must comply with IPSAS.” Clause 19, specifically for Rodrigues, provides, to add a new subsection (8), which states – “The Commissioner [responsible for the subject of Finance under the Regional Assembly] shall, within 10 months [instead if 3 months] of the close of every fiscal year, sign and submit a consolidated financial statement, in compliance with IPSAS.” Madam Speaker, as additional financial information requirements to the financial statements, Clause 3(b)(iii), provides to file a progress report on performance. This will ensure that project implementations stay on track financially and enable early detection of problems or deviations. Madam Speaker, Clause 54, Subclause 2A (2) to (5) – Statistics Act amended, introduces a new National Statistics System so as to establish an integrated system for the development, production and dissemination of official statistics, in accordance with the Act and the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. The hon. Prime Minister, in his budget speech concerning innovation – hon. Dr. Sukon – and research, rightly affirmed his long-term vision for an innovative and inclusive Republic of Mauritius. Unquestionably, Statistics Mauritius will need to revamp national indicators to cover national, sectoral and service-level government data and align with the national development plan. Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that the promotion of research, innovation and development relies heavily on accurate and reliable data. One of the emerging avenues for data capture, sharing and addressing statistical needs is climate change today, and for us, a revamp of the Rodrigues Statistics system with additional data. I will not go into the details. Madam Speaker, now, allow me to address my main intervention on the technical but important bill, the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill (No. XIX of 2025). Its primary objective is to amend five sections of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act to facilitate the re-introduction of Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB). This reform aims to – (i) link funds with results and outcomes; (ii) enhance operational efficiency in the administration of Rodrigues, and (iii) more importantly, enforce greater responsibility, accountability, stability and transparency within any regional government governing Rodrigues. The introduction of PBB will enable Regional Government to shift focus from traditional line budget inputs to measurable results. I must also highlight that, given the current state of the local budget affairs kafouyaz ek dezord, this Programmed-Based Budgeting is more than necessary for Rodrigues. This will strengthen the legal, institutional, and financial frameworks needed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure from available funds allocated from national budget. Madam Speaker, let me now address the constitutionality of this RRA (Amendment) Bill to clear any confusion or misunderstanding. By convention, there is no alternative but to proceed pragmatically, with due respect to the constitutional provisions entrenching the Regional Assembly. I find reassurance in the respect and functionality of the autonomy of Rodrigues, as affirmed by the hon. Prime Minister, who stated that, and I quote – “The Executive Council [the actual one] of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly has been consulted and is agreeable to the proposed amendments.” Madam Speaker, this Bill will enable the Rodrigues Regional Assembly to prepare the 2026-2027 Budget Estimates using the new PBB framework. The House will recall that the first transition from Output-Based Budgeting to Programme-Based Budgeting by the Regional Assembly occurred in 2009 rightly stated by hon. Edouard and amended in 2015, which faced several implementation challenges. The then Chief Commissioner, following approval of the RRA amendments by the Central Government, moved a Motion in his name and I quote – “That the Regional Assembly concurs with the amendments of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly Act as proposed by the Central Government to enable the introduction of Programme-Based Budgeting, pursuant to section 75E of the Constitution of the Republic of Mauritius.” This Motion was debated, approved, and concurred with by the Regional Assembly. Let me cite the Article 75E which stipulates that – “(…) any law giving effect to this Chapter and to any incidental matters shall not be altered without the concurrence of the Regional Assembly unless such alteration is supported at the final voting in the National Assembly by the votes of not less than two- thirds of all the members.” Therefore, the implementation of this Bill, will require, alongside the concurrence of the Regional Assembly, certain amendments to the Regional Assembly Standing Orders and Rules – locally there. Madam Speaker, you will agree with me that any government has power but misuse of that power and poor policy decisions are unwarranted and pose risks to our society. The present amendment to the Regional Assembly Act is not only a reform towards a PBB approach for pragmatism and practicality, but also a meaningful, responsible and productive piece of legislation that promotes good governance. Madam Speaker, the principle of accountability of government domains and functions to Parliament will enable us, as Parliamentarians, to raise concerns about proper political choices, objectives, and the rational planning and allocation of resources. For example, let me substantiate that, if a vulnerable person is waiting for years to obtain a social housing, while Government decides to prioritise unwarranted purchase of Rs147 million worth of vehicles, now lying idle with no drivers or qualified operators – despite budget provision of only Rs33 million – this highlights wastes and misallocation. PBB will also redress procurement collusion between politicians and civil servants. Madam Speaker, the new Section 21A at Clause 18 of the Finance bill, outlines the overall responsibilities of Accounting Officers, precisely at subclause (b) to provide for – “(b) effective and appropriate steps are taken to prevent unauthorised, irregular and wasteful expenditure;” And the House will also recognise the seriousness of the regional situation, as the hon. Prime Minister stated in his reply to my PQ B/650 that – “The Chief Commissioner’s Office of the RRA issued a Circular in June 2025 on Procedures of Reallocation that are not consistent with the Ministry of Finance’s policies and principles on virement.” This issue stems from the line-item budgeting which leads to abuse and the reckless use of funds resources. In that regard, I commend the hon. Prime Minister’s proposals to address this mismanagement of public finances, including collaboration between the Ministry of Finance and the RRA, to issue a revised circular on virement. I am informed of excess virement of more than 30% to the last budget for unprecedented non-spent capital budget, whereas the allowable limit is only 2%. It is witnessed that public administration, under public pressure, blindly follows political instructions without complying with established rules and regulations. Madam Speaker, to substantiate same, just to have a picture of what I am saying and the seriousness of this matter, how can a construction project for constructing approximately 26 parking slots, 200 meters of masonry coastal protection (including demolition and reconstruction), and a new 15 meters jetty – which was not budgeted during last financial year. No request for proposal nor the Ministry of Finance financial clearance was obtained – was awarded to a contractor through work orders under the budget item roads at a cost exceeding Rs40 million, to the expense of announced budgeted roads projects like Montagne Cabri-Est – mo bann pov frer Montagne Cabri – and Montagne Malgache to Port Sud-Est? I put it clearly. I am not opposed to any development projects in Rodrigues, Madam Speaker. But the financial procedures applied are problematic, leading to uncontrollable and unpredictable budget decisions. The Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill comes at an opportune time for sound fiscal planning and greater budget credibility. As the saying goes, ‘Se enn lokasion pou met enn bon lord dan bann desord zestion finans piblik dan Rodrig. Chaque roupie depensée, bizin bien depanse.’ Madam Speaker, I hope that the recent unwarranted, illegal and politically motivated regional budget increase without Cabinet’s concurrence, violating established practices and conventions of technical discussion and agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the RRA, will once and for all become things of the past. I hope PBB will mark a full stop to the abuse of our local public finances and remedy the erosion of intergovernmental trust from political propaganda. Lager larzan bidze ek santaz. We have to be responsible and serious, especially with regard to the autonomy of Rodrigues, for which our fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers have fought for to give us, the people of Rodrigues, an identity. Today, when we see some people salir cette autonomie, Madame la présidente, vous savez ce que cela me fait en tant que Rodriguais responsable, et aussi, à tous ces gens de Rodrigues, qui sont conscients de l’avenir de Rodrigues de demain – des gens responsables ? Madam Speaker, let me conclude!

Yes!

In its political combat for Rodrigues’…

One minute!

I am concluding. In its political combat for Rodrigues’ autonomy, the OPR aspires to leave a legacy of an exemplary and model Rodrigues for future generations. PBB is one of the right paths to end political misappropriation of Rodrigues’ future, while preventing the population from being kept in the dark by complacent behaviours and opaque decisions. PBB is not only a necessity, but an urgent need that the hon. Prime Minister, hon. Deputy Prime Minister and hon. colleagues will agree with. Surely, Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill will link funds with results and outcomes, improve operational efficiency in Rodrigues’ administration, and enforce greater fiscal responsibility, accountability, and transparency. Madam speaker, I am confident that this august Assembly will unanimously vote in support to the Rodrigues Regional Assembly (Amendment) Bill of 2025 as proposed by the hon. Prime Minister and the Government. I can also assure the hon. Prime Minister, hon. Deputy Prime Minister, and the House that the OPR Party, at the Regional Assembly, will have no quarrel on any motion of concurrence in the interest of good governance for Rodrigues and the success of our autonomy. Madam Speaker, with these words, I thank you for your kind attention. Thank you.

Hon. Member, you were right on time!

Oh, yes!

Hon. Damry, please! (6.17 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Finance (Mr D. Damry): Madam Speaker, the amendments in the Finance Bill set a clear policy and direction for our long-term public finances and our economy. It is important to note that the clarity of vision for public finances will, henceforth, be growth-led revenue rather than tax-led revenue. This is a stark demarcation from what the MSM did for 10 years. They printed money; they imported inflation; they applied consumption tax; they applied devaluation tax, and they applied inflation tax at the detriment of the citizens. This is what we are changing. Growth-led revenues are very important because it is growth that sustains the viability of a social system, be it pensions, education, social housing or health care. I think it is time to put one matter to rest. The MSM government clearly intended to terminate all CSG Allowances on 30 June 2025. I would like to quote paragraph 30B (3) of the Social Contribution and Social Benefits Act 2021. It is about income allowance – “(3) The income allowance shall be payable to an eligible individual directly in his bank account at the beginning of each month for the months of [hear it] July 2022 to June 2025.” It cannot be clearer than that. Now, when we come to the social contract, the spirit of pension reforms is very clear. It is aligning payment age to retirement age, and it is phased over five years. Now, for the benefit of our youth, we are building that bridge to the future. I would like, once again, to shed some more light on the policy. The policy is to develop and promote outlier growth revenues while at the same time consolidating recovery and resilience revenues. Let me illustrate it through four amendments in the Finance Bill – (i) The Banking Act and The Bank of Mauritius Act provide for KYC institutions; (ii) The Bills of Exchange Act provides for electronic bills of exchange; (iii) The Economic Development Board Act provides for innovative Mauritius scheme, and (iv) The Income Tax Act provides for virtual assets service providers. To the layman, it may sound that each of these proposed amendments have individual intended consequences. However, when put together, the sum of these amendments and the sum of these intended consequences provide a giant leap in our economic policy. They provide for the digital and AI economy. But we will not see the benefits of these amendments today because the previous government has done nothing for the past 10 years. Allow me to illustrate because we are talking about strategy. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition said that we do not have a strategy for tourism. Hang on! We have a strategy not only for tourism, but for the entire economy. So, let me make some reference, let us learn from what is happening in the global economy. Last year in 2024, the Nobel Prize winner for Economics, MIT’s known Professor Daron Acemoglu wrote a paper called the Macroeconomics of AI. In that paper, he studied the impact of AI on global economies. Goldman Sachs said that productivity gains could be anything around 1% of global GDP – say 7 trillion dollars. McKinsey said the productivity or impact of AI could be anywhere between 1.5% to 3.5% in terms of productivity gains, and Singapore is estimating that the productivity gains, over the next few years, will be up to 18% of their GDP. So, just imagine, if in the years to come, we make even a 1% productivity gain to our GDP – through the measures that we are setting out today, that’s 1% GDP gain. What Singapore is very good at doing, they are also creating a SPRING Board to be in the supply chain of AI Services. And, Mauritius is well poised to do that and if we do that, we add another 1% to our GDP. All of a sudden, that’s 2% to our GDP. The reason I said, it is outright growth is because these sectors are meant to grow exponentially, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, that’s the kind of growth that we can expect from these sectors. But in the meantime, while we invest in that, while we prepare, we have to ensure economic growth through recovery and resilience sectors. There are two sectors: the first one is property development. What the previous government did was ten years of property sales. They had no clue what to do in productive economies. Because this Government wants to create jobs, we want to bring forex in our country and when speaking about property, it was clear that no one is above the law, even the Government is not above the law. This Government could not, like the previous government did, subject this nation to another Betamax or another Patel Engineering Ltd, by not following the law. That is one of the reasons why we grandfathered Smart City regulations and other property regulations. That is the reason why we had to bring these amendments to the Finance Bill. The second reason is: while developing the new economic order, we have to ensure that we get at least 3 to 4% growth as we have estimated in our medium-term outlook. The second sector is, of course, the global business sector, and here, I would like to touch upon, – hon. Uteem said it very well. In fact, both of us have been professionals in the financial services sector for the past 20 years, at least me, before getting in this House and this is a sector we know very well and the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about the qualified domestic minimum tax top-up. Hon. Uteem explained it very well. The OECD and the G20 adopted this Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules and what this means is that 15% in your country but if you are paying 3% here, then you have to pay the balance in another country. At the same time, MNEs like big MNCs, any MNC, any business for that matter, any investor for that matter, they always need clarity and certainty. I will not share the name but I had a discussion with one of those MNCs in Mauritius, and they were worried because they had no clarity of what was Mauritius’ position with regard to QDMTT because 131 countries in the world have subscribed to it. So, you cannot have investment if you do not have certainty. This is one of the things that this amendment is bringing. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that such MNCs would go to Singapore and to UAE, if I heard well. Well, let me, for his knowledge, advise, Singapore adopted the QDMTT law in 2024, the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act 2024. The UAE adopted the same law through a Cabinet Decision No. 142 of 2024. So, they have done it before Mauritius, we are playing catch-up. We have been playing catch-up in every growth area, Madam Speaker, and this is what this Finance Bill is trying to remedy. Let me now also add one thing that the proposed amendments in this Finance Bill, they will provide for a sound Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) risk adjusted macroeconomic fundamentals. What this means is that international institutions will always look at us with a lot of attractiveness. The hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference to foreign currency. So, we are proposing an amendment in the Income Tax Act where businesses earning more than 50% of their revenues will pay their tax in foreign currency. These are measures that should have been brought in way earlier but they have not. Madam Speaker, I don’t think I will speak more because the hon. Prime Minister and hon. Reza Uteem canvassed the Finance Bill so well but I always like to end with one or two short stories that inspire me and maybe they can inspire you too.

You have a bit of time!

That’s alright. I think, let me tell the story. So, the Mauritius nation…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Nou ekout zistwar la!

Mo ti kroir story la lor li sa!

No, I will not. But, since you told me I have a bit of time, three very short stories.

Yes!

The first thing is its…

(Interruptions)

It’s important, I know…

(Interruptions)

An hon. Member: Zistwar la billet mil…

Let him speak!

Let me speak. I know why the hon. Leader of the Opposition... So, I will ask the House a question – what is the average IQ of a normal human being?

155!

It’s about 122.

Okay!

Right? Elon Musk and Einstein, their IQ is about 155.

That’s it!

Guess who else has this IQ? AI! And guess what is happening to the IQ of AI? It will keep doubling over the next six months. This is the prediction and this is why the face of change, the velocity of change will be so rapid that we have to adapt. I am glad to say, now the hon. Prime Minister will be happy, because we have a leader, a leadership that adapts to change. And, there are two stories that I would like, one for the nation and one for us. The nation has always stood with the motherland whenever the motherland has needed its children. So, since we are speaking about the economy, you have Jack Ma. Jack Ma always talks about entrepreneurs in this way, he says – “Today is difficult, tomorrow is even more difficult, but the day after tomorrow morning will be very beautiful." Unfortunately, most of the people give up, they give up tomorrow afternoon. They don’t wait till day after tomorrow morning. And I am very happy and this really touches me that the nation is with us and together, we will rise; this government, the whole nation, after three years, when we have redressed our economy based on our budget outflow. And the one commitment that we can make to the nation and this is what the Prime Minister said, he does not promise to take the nation to heaven but he certainly will not take the nation to hell. And I can tell you this is what Thomas Edison said – “Maybe I did not find 10,000 ways that worked but I will keep trying till I find that one way that will work.” And this is what we will do to support the Prime Minister, to support this government and with this, I commend all the three Bills to the House. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Dr. Ms Jeetun. (6.33 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this august Assembly with a sense of deep responsibility and purpose to support the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025. This government was entrusted with a historic mandate, not only to reverse a decade of drift and to rebuild fiscal credibility but also to reignite economic dynamism and to inspire confidence and hope in the future of Mauritius. Madam Speaker, one of the key objectives of the Finance Bill 2025, is a total reset of our economic model, starting with fiscal consolidation, that is, reducing government deficits and improving the fiscal balance. So, we could either cut public spending or increase revenue or do both. And as a responsible government, restoring investor confidence is paramount to achieving the challenging revenue targets set by this budget. Push too hard on the revenue side and the perceived tax burden becomes too high, and we face the risk of losing investors’ confidence which then can lead to a direct negative impact on growth. Some of the changes to the Finance Bill that I will be talking about, are to avoid that situation. So, just as social safety nets were introduced to protect the vulnerable groups through the Income Allowance, it is also important that our revenue sides, fiscal measures do not dampen growth. Madam Speaker, we have an inclusive and responsible approach to governance. We listen to the voices of the people; we listen to the voices of enterprises and we are therefore introducing a number of refinements and clarifications to this Bill. These changes reflect the valuable feedback received from various stakeholders. They reaffirm our commitment to getting the details right, to ensure that reforms are not only ambitious; they are fair, they are practical and they are implementable. So, Madam Speaker, allow me to highlight the key amendments relating to the financial services sector. First, under the Income Tax Act, with regard to the Fair Share Contribution for businesses, global business entities are exempted. I wish to draw the attention of the House to some important clarifications brought with respect to foundations and trusts which are the two cornerstone structures in our global financial services architecture. The Finance Bill provides for the harmonisation of treatment of these entities under the Income Tax Act ensuring that they benefit from the same legal clarity and fiscal predictability afforded to global business license holders. So, by replacing the term global license with global business license, the Bill ensures that foundations, trusts, and similar fiduciary structures are appropriately included in our tax and regulatory framework. These measures strengthen Mauritius status as a trusted and innovative jurisdiction for wealth management, succession planning and philanthropic capital particularly for Africa and Asia where such instruments are gaining relevance. Let me immediately reassure the House that the principle of the source of chargeable income will be respected. So, trusts and foundations with chargeable income from domestic activities will not benefit from this exemption. Second, Madam Speaker, the Finance Bill legislates key revenue raising measures from the budget including the introduction of the Fair Share contribution and the Domestic Top-up Tax as part of our commitment to align the OECD Pillar Two – Global Minimum Tax rules. We understand that parts of the industry have expressed concerns about the potential impact of these measures on competitiveness. The QDMTT Provisions did create some causes for concerns and uncertainty in the industry given that many countries such as the US and India have not yet implemented these rules. However, as the Prime Minister clearly emphasised the other day, consultations will be held with the industry stakeholders and regulations will be made to make provisions for exclusions and incentives to give relief to companies that become liable to the Global Minimum Tax. This provides the much-needed clarity and assurance to global businesses set up in our financial services sector. It improves legal certainty and reduces the risk of ambiguity for affected tax payers. Bottom line, it safeguards the attractiveness and competitiveness of the Mauritius International Financial Sector. Third, Madam Speaker, the next amendment concerns the Value Added Tax Act, to bring clarity on the banking sector. We are expressly clarifying that the 35% cap om chargeable income applies solely to domestic banking business and not to global business. Madam Speaker, the financial sector in Mauritius remains the largest contributor of corporate tax of our national revenue, underscoring its vital role in sustaining our fiscal framework. The sector contributed some Rs15 billion in corporate tax that is, more that 68% of corporate tax. The Banking Industry continues to report good level of profitability which supports the merit of proposal to increase taxation on banks. However, we must recognise the inherent duality of the Mauritian Banking Industry, which necessitates a nuance approach to taxation policy. On one hand, the domestic banking sector remains dominated by two large layers. If we are to promote greater competition in this sector, particularly encouraging participation from international banks in our domestic market, we must ensure that taxation policies are not detrimental to this objective. So, a differentiated taxation approach is therefore essential with a cap of 35% for domestic banking operations being justified to maintain competitive conditions that can attract new entrance while ensuring fair contribution from profitable institutions. On the other hand, the global banking sector of the Mauritian Banking Industry relies heavily on the attractiveness of the Mauritius International Financial Centre as a jurisdiction of choice. High taxation levels will make returns less attractive in this segment and may prompt international banks currently using Mauritius to channel their resources to other more attractive or tax efficient jurisdictions. Not only this could undermine our strategic position as a leading financial hub, but it will also go against our agreed strategy to position this sector which is already the first pillar of our economy into a major engine for growth. Therefore, while there is clear merit in increasing taxes on banks given their strong profitability, we advocated for a differentiated taxation policy that recognises the distinct dynamics of our domestic and global business banking sectors. Madam Speaker, it was important to clarify this. This approach will ensure we maximise fiscal revenues while preserving the competitiveness and attractiveness that has made Mauritius a preferred financial services destination. The fourth amendment, Madam Speaker, is under the Economic Development Board Act where the salary threshold for occupation permit regime is being adjusted to Rs30,000. It is no secret that the financial services sector is entirely dependent on highly skilled staff, and it is also no secret – we have outlined that in our Strategy Report in 2025-2030 for the sector – that there are major human capital gaps in the sector. So, while measures will be taken to mitigate this situation in medium and long term, it is important to recognise the need of the industry in the short term. For example, the unique structural model and operational characteristic of fund administration in our global business sector requires fund accounting professionals. This change, therefore, ensures that Mauritius can avail itself of talent in specific sectors to remain competitive and aligned with international fund servicing norms. Madam Speaker, last but not the least, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a significant clarification affecting the real estate and property development sector. In fact, this industry should not be seen in isolation. It is very intricately linked to the financial services sector as many of the non-citizens who buy properties in these schemes administered by the Economic Development Board are also investors in our global business structures. It is, therefore, important to understand the life cycle of a real estate project that can take up to four, five, six, seven years from concept design to feasibility to marketing, having to secure more than 75% of funded reservation with deposits to secure the Garantie Financière d'Achèvement (GFA) and get all the permits before they can even start digging for construction. Many foreign investors relocate their businesses to Mauritius through the global business sector. They also relocate with their families and they put in a deposit and have to wait for years before they actually take possession. So, there was a need for some certainty in this sector. The Bill, therefore, introduces transitional provisions in the form of grandfathering arrangements to protect ongoing projects. This grandfathering mechanism is essential to maintain investor confidence, mitigate uncertainty and ensure that strategic long-term developments in the sector are not being adversely impacted. It also aligns with global best practices in safeguarding preexisting contractual commitments, particularly in jurisdictions where property development is a major source of FDI. We must also not forget the direct linkage not only to the financial services sector, but also the multiplier effect that these buyers have on the wider economy. Madam Speaker, these refinements reflect our conviction. They show that this Government leads by listening and governs with both ambition and precision. By pairing bold reforms with thoughtful transitional measures, we are demonstrating maturity, responsibility and fairness in policy making. This is how lasting, inclusive reform is done with clarify and consultation. With this Bill, we are making choices not for popularity, but for posterity. We are choosing bold reforms over political convenience, substance over spectacle and strategic foresight over short term fixes. All this for the betterment and future of the nation. Madam Speaker, the Finance Bill is not only about legislative changes. It is about credibility, purpose, and ambition. It is about the kind of country we wish to be: transparent, forward thinking and resilient. It is about the confidence we must inspire among citizens, but also confidence about investors and our partners. This Bill is also not merely about laws. It is about leadership. It is not just a collection of amendments. It closes the chapter on a decade of decline and opens a new chapter grounded in economic reality in hope and in future prosperity built on solid foundations. We are not here to be populists. We are here to govern by principle with empathy and responsibility. History will retain, Madam Speaker, that this Government led by a bold and courageous Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister and all my colleagues in this House here who had the audacity to choose a path that was albeit the most difficult one, but it was the right one. As I said, we are not here to be liked, but we are here to lead. With this, Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the vision and courage that this Bill presents. I invite the House to lend its support so that we can convert legislative intent into transformative impact. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Dr. Boolell!

Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the adjournment of the debate. The Deputy Prime Minister rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly.