Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill before the House today is the culmination of a process of reform that was initiated with the start of this administration. The need for such reform was underscored by the reality that at the time there was something like R3 billion in unallocated, undistributed lotteries funds. Through a combination of the administrative reforms and also the changes in secondary legislation regulations, I am happy to say that we have no such unallocated funds sitting in the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund today.
The fact is that the applications for lotteries funding have more than doubled since then and that we have, as a result, seen a necessity to come to Parliament to request changes of the legislation to make the process of allocating lotteries funds much more efficient.
The Bill before the House today is intended to address the following problems, among others. There has been an absence of the quorum for adjudication by the part-time distributing agencies. This is because some of the part-time members of those distribution agencies have been unavailable to attend the ever-growing number of meetings that they were supposed to participate in. Members of the distribution agencies have also had to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest in particular applications.
There have also been some challenges in trying to demarcate the relationship between the National Lotteries Board and the distribution agencies, arising from insufficient clarity in respect of roles, and there has been inadequate structure and capacity in the National Lotteries Board to carry out its mandate effectively.
The Bill that is before us is as a result of considerable consultation with all affected stakeholders in the lotteries family. The Bill will, in the first instance, establish a new entity called the National Lotteries Commission. This is to distinguish between the institution and the board. There will still be a board, but there will be an appointment of a commissioner and the institution itself will be known as the National Lotteries Commission. The functions of the latter National Lotteries Commission have been clarified and enhanced to realise a great impact in communities through proactive and application-based measures. The amending Bill will also provide for the appointment of the distribution agencies as full-time bodies. This will obviate the problems arising from the lack of quorums in this respect.
The distribution agencies will account administratively to the board, whilst maintaining their adjudication independence in the same way the bid adjudication committees function in various public and business set-ups. The Minister will continue to appoint the distribution agency members, who will on a day-to-day basis and administratively report to the board. The full-time nature of the appointment will eradicate delays in adjudication due to the lack of quorums. Conflicts of interest will now be properly managed by providing that members of distribution agencies will no longer be allowed to be a member of those agencies and at the same time play an active role in organisations that apply for grants. Quite simply, if you are involved in that, you do not just stand aside at a particular meeting; you actually cannot any longer serve in a distribution agency. The amending Bill creates an internal review mechanism to enable applicants who are aggrieved to have that appeal dealt with expeditiously. There are some other measures that clarify the role of the Ministry and the Minister in this regard.
Let me refer to the controversial item that was clause 13. The reality is that there is only a handful of international companies that have the technology and capacity to operate national lotteries worldwide. In South Africa we formed consortia with local companies and these bid for the lottery licence. What we are saying in clause 13, quite simply, is that if this process does not yield us efficient local procurement of goods and services, does not transfer skills and technology or is not in compliance with broad-based black economic empowerment, the Minister may decide to choose the option - which a number of countries do - of having a public entity run the national lottery and then contracting one of those international operators as a technology partner.
I want to thank the portfolio committee for all the work that they have done, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members of this House, colleagues and comrades, the Lotteries Amendment Bill is indeed the Bill we all - beneficiaries, the board, the portfolio committee and the people of our country South Africa - have been waiting for. I want to believe that we all share noble ideas and the commitment to end poverty or simply to make a positive difference in someone's life, in all our people's lives. The small amount of money that is necessary to buy a Lotto ticket can and does contribute to this ideal of improving people's lives.
This Bill will make it easier for the intended beneficiaries, as the Minister explained, to benefit from many issues, amongst others the pro- active funding and the more permanent staff that will assist with things. It will also remove the confusion that exists in what the Act currently entails and clarify the role of the Minister. Indeed, issues of good governance are affected in but, more importantly, accountability and transparency. Just as we use taxation as an instrument to redistribute the wealth of our country and share the revenue equitably, so too this Bill seeks to underpin those principles that are captured in the Freedom Charter.
The Department of Trade and Industry has reaffirmed this call for social and economic justice in its comprehensive application to this piece of legislation. We must indeed thank the Minister, Dr Rob Davies, for his courage and conviction over a four-and-half-year journey to finally bring us this Bill, a Bill that will make that difference, assisted by the Director-General and his team, Mr Lionel October. We truly thank them. I want to personally thank the committee for truly unpacking and scrutinising this. Together with the department we have produced a piece of legislation which we believe will address the outstanding challenges we have been facing since they were recognised in a review mechanism conducted before we even came to this term, but more specifically during our term.
Some of the challenges which have been addressed by the Lotteries Amendment Bill are in line with what the portfolio committee raised in 2009. They include the fact that the National Lotteries Board had been unable to enforce the Act effectively even through court action. There was a need to professionalise the grant-making and to bring about a formal relationship between the National Lotteries Board and the proposed grant-making institutions.
We need to look at the purpose and the objectives of the Bill. The Minister has already dealt with many of these, but I think some of the most important things was providing for the extension of the powers of the commission and making it quite clear what the separation was between the board and the commission, and stating the purpose of the commission itself.
When we look at the commission, I must say that now that we have professional and clear functions of the commission, the composition has already been dealt with. I am very pleased to say that this commission will plug a lot of the loopholes that we currently have.
Secondly, when we look at gambling, I do not think that the purpose in our country, in our government has been to promote gambling right from the Wiehahn Commission many years ago, and even now. We need to recognise that there are different forms of gambling. One form of gambling is the gambling you see in the casinos and the like. The priority is to make profits to the shareholders and then, through our legislation, to serve the needs of the community through local economic development.
On the other hand, the revenue model applied by the National Lottery, and reflected in this Bill today, is to maximise revenue through the small amount that we use to purchase a Lotto ticket. However, the profit or the revenue or the income that arises from the purchases of tickets is essentially for the beneficiaries. In the past these beneficiaries were restricted, and the whole process of their application was extremely difficult. The hon Gcwabaza will be explaining in detail how proactive gambling hopes to address these difficulties as we got complaints from both sides of the House and the constituents; indeed, many of them came from the constituents of the DA. This Bill is now going to ensure that the difficulties they experienced will indeed be addressed. We want to thank the Minister, the department and indeed our own government, the ANC government, for facilitating the discussions and the improvement on policy in this direction, which they did with a number of stakeholders in dialogue and in speaking to them about how best they can do things. This process of consultation has, as we would expect, produced greater public participation, which has brought about an even more effective and sharper instrument.
Another issue that we must point out is that the categories that have now been addressed can now be broadened, though of course without ring-fencing the issue. Instead of one area or sector of society benefiting at the expense of the other, you will have professionals who will work in evaluating and assessing where the best, most constructive good will be done. We must also remember that the kinds of grants that are made through this Bill are not intended to replace the work of the public budget or indeed to supersede the normal raising of revenue by institutions and individuals in this regard.
I would like to say something that I believe is very important, and that is that the ANC-led government, through harnessing the positive aspects of the Lotto, does so informed by its principles of redistribution and reconciliation. I also want - I am sure hon Buthelezi would also appreciate this - to refer to "ubuhlobo bethu nezwe lonke" [our relationship with the whole country]. In this way our humanity is more expressed when we approach the intention of the Lotto, which is to try to contribute to the improvement of the lives of all our people, especially the most vulnerable.
The ANC supports this Bill. I must add at this time that I want to thank all members of the committee for their constructive input and for the many hours they devote to this committee, even way after most of Parliament is in darkness. Thank you all. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the DA originally welcomed the tabling of the Lotteries Amendment Bill, which the department introduced following years of sustained criticism by civil society, the DA and the general public of the way in which the Lotto was being managed. The criticism focussed around the fundamental lack of transparency throughout the entire Lotto operation, a complicated and unresponsive grant applications process, alleged corruption, conflicts of interest and political bias.
It was in 2010 when the DA, in fact, introduced a Private Member's Bill to fix many of these problems. It was introduced by the hon Small. This Bill was summarily rejected on the basis that similar legislation would soon be introduced by the executive. Well, nearly three years later, the Minister of Trade and Industry finally tabled the Lotteries Amendment Bill. For the most part, this Bill is a good one.
We support the following aspects of the Bill: the introduction of the much stricter rules for who can be appointed to the board and the commission, as well as the all-important distributing agencies; the introduction of much stricter rules around conflict of interests, who can adjudicate applications, who can apply for grants, who may and may not receive grants and a mandatory 24-month cooling-off period; the inclusion of an appeal mechanism to allow applicants who have been declined or who have the information that grants are being made or are being used corruptly to appeal these decisions, which will make blowing the whistle on suspected corruption in the Lotto easier and more effective; and, lastly, the creation of full-time distributing agencies that will enable people to deal with agencies much more speedily, greatly reducing the three to six months waiting time that applicants currently have to wait for an answer.
If the Bill had ended there, we would have been supporting it wholeheartedly today, as I think would most of organised civil society. However, in our view, the Bill is entirely ruined by the inclusion of the controversial clause 13(a) - which the Minister made reference to - which allows the Minister to license any organ of state to run the Lottery for a period of eight years with an option of renewal of two years - effectively ten years altogether.
It's helpful for this House to recap briefly the arguments made in Committee on this issue. The department began very specifically by arguing that they needed to allow a state organ to run the Lotto for a brief period as a stopgap, only in the event that a suitably qualified private sector licensee could not be found and so that the continued operation of the Lotto could be guaranteed. That is why the Bill as originally tabled contained an allowance for the period of 24 months for the stopgap, in which time the department would need to issue a new request for proposals, receive and evaluate bids and appoint a new licensee. This argument, hon members, was completely reasonable and the DA had no objection.
The second scenario outlined was when the appointed licensee at some point in their licence period is unable to honour their contract, as happened in 2007, when the Lottery was shut down for six months. Again, the original Bill asked for a period of 24 months to fix this by allowing the state organ to run the Lotto temporarily while a new private licensee was sought and appointed. Again, we had no objection. But what was clear was that at no stage was the argument made that what the government wanted was a straight state-run Lotto for a full period of ten years.
If hon members refer to the Bill, as ATCed, the argument is not made in the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill. If the hon members refer to the policy document that was released accompanying the Bill, the argument is not made in that policy document. In fact, the only mention made of the state running the Lotto is in one bullet point on page 29 of the document, under the heading "Technical Amendments". What we have before us today is not a technical amendment, it's a major policy shift, and it's a very bad idea.
The Bill before us does not offer any details on what the state organ will look like. Will it be the relatively efficient South African Revenue Service, or will it be Public Works or will it be South African Airways? Who will head it? How will that person or team be appointed? Who will they account to? And how will the revenue be split? These are all things we know nothing about. But despite these missing details, the committee decided to agree to the change and changed 24 months to 8 years.
However, this was not the only controversy. Far more important is the question of whether the department intends crowding out the private sector altogether, that is whether the Minister must first go through a competitive bidding process and prove that no suitable bidder could be found before he licenses an organ of state, or, conversely, can he proactively license an organ of state without first seeking a suitable private sector bidder?
It was very clear to me, and I have confirmed this with the Deputy Director General, that the Minister wanted the power to license an organ of state without any need to first follow a competitive bidding process. In fact, I think the Minister may still be under this impression. However, let me tell Minister Davies now that the committee was of a very different opinion. On the last day of deliberations at which the department was, unbelievably, not present, all the members of the committee made it very clear that the Minister must first follow a competitive bidding process and then show good reason why no suitable licensee could be found.
The DA argued in committee that the 24-month period be retained and not increased to eight years. We then argued that the clause should be deleted in its entirety. And lastly, we argued that the Minister should show good grounds for the decision to license a state entity. The last of these was successful, and we are pleased that requirement is now contained in the Bill.
Our final point of objection concerns conduit funding - and this is important for hon members. This Bill now prohibits any NGO in South Africa from applying for funding from the Lotto on behalf of other NGOs. We know that there are many excellent organisations in South Africa, like the Community Chest, for example, which specialises in sourcing funding and managing those funds on behalf of other NGOs in the community.
There was evidence presented of some abuse, sure, but what this Bill does is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It was completely unnecessary to prohibit conduit funding altogether. The DA and civil society eagerly awaited this Bill and looked forward to a Bill that we could all support. It is sad that we now have a Bill before us that we cannot support. We believe that what started out as a great Bill was ruined entirely by the department that is obsessed with the state capture of every aspect of our economy.
Do you know, hon members, that at one point in the committee process the department actually made the argument that political office bearers should be allowed to have a financial interest in the Lotto? [Interjections.] They actually made that argument. It is in the record. If South Africans had concerns about political bias, corruption, conflict of interest and lack of transparency in the Lotto before, they will now be even more concerned for the future of the national lottery. Clause 13(a) ruins this Bill entirely and it makes it impossible for the DA to support this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Chair, what is a national lottery? It is actually an admission that people like to gamble, and gambling is not a good thing, but it needs to be organised and legalised so we can get money off it. Or if you want to let your petticoats, your socialist petticoats, hang out, you link it to redistributing wealth in society. I have never heard such sophistry in my life.
The purpose of a lottery is to enable a state to give those people in our society who like, perhaps, to gamble more than at the odd Durban July horse races, an opportunity to do so. It is established and then the rationale is to take most of the money and give it to - and our Bill talks about - "worthy, good causes". That's what Lotteries are for: It's not a tax; it is individual - South African individuals - taking their own money, often very little money, and hoping to "tata ma chance"! Then they can use that opportunity for helping some worthy, good cause. So, I think we must be very careful with that money.
I want to say that I find the organ of state sinister, because you know there is no chapter on ethics in the Communist Manifesto - no chapter on ethics. [Laughter.] And this organ of state has all those sinister overtones and undertones. The hon chairlady's speech made me even more concerned about what the real intention of the organ of state is. The Lotto should not be used as a kind of financial safety net for badly run municipalities, for disasters, for areas where government doesn't work. It is for worthy, good causes and it is not to follow year-on-year; it's not a debit order system. It's ad hoc but, it may be for a three-year donation.
This is basically a good Bill and it is welcome. I think it is a commendation to the department that they are finally bringing this reform to the lotteries issue. I also think it's important to recognise not only our chairlady, who is an outstanding leader of the team and also a good leader of legislation, but also this committee, which works very hard. We have passed a number of laws. Some of my friends in the caucus say: "Why is that old man always speaking in debates?" It is because our committee works hard and we have all these laws to pass, so we have to come and make our contributions.
But the way our laws have been passed is thorough, because our committee staff work well, we have excellent parliamentary legal advisers, we have the state law advisers, and the Department of Trade and Industry has its own legal department. I think our portfolio committee and our chairlady are doing a good job.
Now, clause 21 deals with the linkage of the distribution agencies and the commission to the PFMA, and I think that is very important. The commission and the distribution agencies will now be much more tightly controlled, they will be full-time and this will, I believe, result in much less controversy about the awards that the Lotto makes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the hon Hill-Lewis made a very good contribution. He is a young man with a golden future, although he was only born after I had been here for a few years. [Laughter.] The hon member McIntosh also made a good contribution, but in the old South Africa he had a nickname. We called him "Haas Das". So, to the hon Haas Das and the hon Hill-Lewis, thank you for putting your case very properly. We will also oppose the Bill.
This National Lotteries Bill has been dogged by poor administration and a level of incompetence that has resulted in charities and other deserving organisations not receiving funds or not receiving funds in good time. This has been the proverbial thorn in the Lotto's side since its inception. The amending Bill proposes even less scrutiny, reducing accountability regarding the disbursement of funds and thereby making it easier for corruption to flourish.
The creation of a single distribution agency for the disbursement of Lotto funds lends itself to maladministration. It is our submission that this agency will not be able to properly process all applications that come before them. There already exists a severe backlog of entities, although the Minister said that it has been sorted out now. Will the establishment of this single distribution agency, alleviate or compound the problem? That is the question.
We live in a country with many socioeconomic disparities. The National Lottery was originally established as a means to help alleviate the pressure on many organisations that are doing great work in our communities, but they are restricted by the lack of funding. Instead, we have an organisation that has further restricted these organisations by not providing the funding that they need or taking so long to give funds that some organisations were forced to close down.
This amending Bill will mean that there will continue to be less accountability and more secrecy surrounding the distribution of funds of the Lottery. If the current lack of transparency is anything to go by, the recommendations of the Bill will mean that unchecked spending will continue unabatedly, with the citizenry, as always, being the ultimate loser.
There are good parts of the Bill, as was pointed out by the previous speakers, but for the reasons above, and also what they have mentioned, the IFP will oppose this Bill. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers and hon members, one of the very important structures of the national lottery is the distribution agencies. Part of the objectives for amending the Lotteries Act is to professionalise the distributing agencies, to make the them accountable to the National Lotteries Board and to shorten the turnaround time for adjudicating the applications for grants and distributing the funds to the NGOs, the community-based organisations, CBOs, the arts, cultural, heritage and sports organisations.
The Bill provides that the Minister shall appoint the members of the distributing agencies to serve on a full-time basis. It further provides that such persons must have a suitable combination of qualifications, skills and expertise to consider, evaluate and adjudicate applications for grants and make recommendations to the board for funding of worthy, good causes.
These provisions will make the distributing agencies a lot more efficient and prompt in carrying out the task of considering and adjudicating the applications and in submitting their recommendations to the board. They will also be able to alert the applicants timeously when their applications do not meet the requirements and assist these applicants where necessary.
There are self-appointed advisers to the small community organisations, especially in rural and historically disadvantaged communities - organisations which my friend hon Hill-Lewis said are organisations that submit applications on behalf of these organisations. However, what he forgot to mention is that those who act on behalf of these organisations charge a fee out of the allocated funds. We are convinced that this task should be performed by the full-time members of the distributing agencies at no fee. It is for this reason that we have directed that the regulations must provide for this free service to these disadvantaged community organisations and that the application forms must be made easy and less cumbersome for these small but deserving good causes.
Kuzosiza kakhulu-ke lokhu, kusize futhi nezinhlangano zemiphakathi yakithi esezindaweni zasemakhaya ezenza imisebenzi ebalulekile yokusiza abantu njengezinkulisa, izinhlangano ezinakekela izintandane lapho iMinyango kaHulumeni ingakakwazi ukufinyelela khona nezinye izinhlangano ezifana nalezo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[This will help us a lot, and it will also assist those community-based organisations in our rural areas, which are doing very important work in helping people by providing crche facilities, as well as the welfare organisations that look after the welfare of the orphans in areas where government departments and other organisations of that nature do not reach.]
The amending Bill mandates the National Lotteries Commission to do proactive funding of good causes. The commission will conduct research and identify a need to fund projects which address the urgent needs of communities that are aligned to government priorities. Some of this proactive funding might attend to emergencies caused by natural disasters.
Lezi zidingo eziphuthumayo ezinjengamabhuloho azosiza umphakathi nezingane zesikole ukuthi ziwele uma ziya noma zibuya esikoleni, isikole esiyisakhiwo esingaphephile, izikole ezingakabi nezindlu zangasese, nemizi edilizwe yizikhukhula, nanoma yisiphi isidingo esiphuthumayo esizoxazulula izinkinga ezikhungethe umphakathi zibaliwe kulo Mthethosivivinywa. Kodwa lokhu kuzokwenzeka ngokubambisana nabaPhathiswa besiFundazwe noHulumeni baseKhaya.
Kuyasijabulisa-ke thina bakaKhongolose ukuthi abaHoli beNdabuko ngokumelwa yiNdlu kaZwelonke yobuKhosi beNdabuko bafika emhlanganweni weKomidi bezokwenza iziphakamiso ezibalulekile futhi bezokweseka lesi siChibiyelo salo Mthetho. Futhi abaHoli bezwakalisa ukuthanda nokuzimisela ukusebenzisana nezinhlaka ze-National Lotteries ukuze kusizakale imiphakathi eyakhele izindawo ezingaphansi kobuKhosi beNdabuko. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Emergency facilities, like bridges, which the community and school children use to cross rivers to get to and from school, unsafe school buildings, schools without proper toilets, houses that were destroyed by natural disasters, and any other emergency that can solve the community's problems are catered for in this Bill. But this will only happen with the co-operation of the MECs and local governments.
It makes us as the ANC happy that the traditional leaders, represented by the National House of Traditional Leaders, attended the committee meeting to make a very important submission and also to support this amending Bill. The traditional leaders have indicated that they are committed to working with the structures of the National Lotteries Board of South Africa so that the communities that reside in areas under the traditional authorities can be served.]
We must also mention that the traditional leaders made their Traditional Council offices available to the commission and the distributing agencies for the purpose of conducting research and for facilitating the proactive funding of urgent good causes.
It is worth mentioning that in addition to many NGOs, CBOs and other interest groups, at least two national youth formations - one of which represents the SADC region as a whole - representing the wide range of youth organisations our country, made valuable recommendations to the portfolio committee and expressed their support for the amendments of the Lotteries Amendment Bill.
The amending Bill sets out no less than eight criteria which empower the Minister to decide not to appoint a person to serve as a member of the distributing agency. For instance, a political office bearer, a person who has been found by the court of law in the Republic or elsewhere to have acted fraudulently, dishonestly and unprofessionally, etc, may not be appointed.
In addition, a member of the distributing agency must submit to the Minister, the board and the commission, before being appointed, a written declaration stating whether or not he or she has any direct interest, financially or otherwise, and whether or not such interest may constitute a conflict of interest.
We, as the ANC, are satisfied that, if passed into an Act, this Bill will better serve our people. We therefore support the Lotteries Amendment Bill and request Parliament to pass it. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr die Voorsitter, die FF Plus verskil fundamenteel van die ANC-regering op verskeie beleidsfronte. Een daarvan is die daarstelling van die nasionale lotery. Ons standpunt is dat die nasionale lotery gevoed word deur die finansile bydraes van die armes, wat reeds min het, en dus bydra tot maatskaplike probleme. In effek is 'n nasionale lotery glad nie nodig nie.
Die inkomste wat die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens so effektief versamel van die belastingbetalers moet bloot sinvol aangewend word en die ekonomie moet beter bestuur word. Indien die jaarlikse vermorsing van staatsinkomste deur middel van vrugtelose uitgawes, wanadministrasie en korrupsie net gedeeltelik gekeer word, sal daar genoeg inkomste wees sodat die staat sy maatskaplike verantwoordelikhede kan uitvoer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Adv A D ALBERTS: Chairperson, the FF Plus differs fundamentally from the ANC-led government on various policy fronts. One of those is the establishment of the National Lottery. Our position is that the National Lottery is fed by the financial contributions of the poor, who already have very little, and so contributes to social problems. In fact, a national lottery is not necessary at all.
The income that the South African Revenue Service so effectively collects from the taxpayers must simply be applied sensibly and the economy needs to be managed better. If the annual wastage of state income by means of fruitless expenditure, maladministration and corruption could be prevented only partially, there would be enough of an income so that the state is able to execute its social responsibilities.]
Having said this, the National Lottery is a given and in that regard it is incumbent upon us to ensure that it is managed in accordance with legal prescripts, namely, the Constitution and the National Lotteries Act. Importantly, as required by the Constitution, there must be a rational link between the objectives of the Act and the actual performance of obligations in terms of that Act.
It happens too frequently that an Act is promulgated without actually realising its objectives. Too often an Act allows for the creation of unconstitutional vestiges and strongholds of own interests to emerge at the cost of the taxpayer and those who should have been helped instead.
Such is the case with the national Lotteries Act. I have experienced this at first hand. Upon visiting places of safety for newborn babies in Pretoria, it was interesting to note that many struggled to get financing from the Lotteries Board. This was the case despite the fact that most of the babies being cared for are black. Some did not even get the courtesy of a reply after making applications for grants.
Daarom is die veranderings wat beoog word in die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Loterye wel welkom. Veral die instel van 'n hersieningsliggaam om besluite van die raad en verspreidingsagentskappe te hersien, is van groot belang. Ten minste het klein en ondergefinansierde organisasies wat nie die geld het om regslui aan te stel nie nou wel 'n remedie indien hulle voel hulle aansoeke is ongeregverdig afgekeur.
Dit is ongelukkig so, en dit is ook 'n sterk persepsie by die publiek, dat die fondse nie uitkom waar dit die nodigste is nie. So, byvoorbeeld, het dit aan die lig gekom dat 'n ryk skool 'n bydrae ontvang het vir kulturele aktiwiteite, terwyl babas nie kos het om te eet nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[That is why the amendments envisaged in the Lotteries Amendment Bill are indeed welcome. Particularly the establishment of a review body to review decisions of the board and distribution agencies are of great importance. At least small and underfinanced organisations which do not have the money to appoint legal practitioners now actually have a remedy if they feel that their applications are being unfairly refused.
It is unfortunately the case, and this is also a strong perception with the public, that the funds do not reach the places where they are most necessary. So, for example, it has come to light that a wealthy school received a contribution for cultural activities, while babies do not have food to eat.]
Therefore, at the very least, if one can eradicate the misallocation of funds and ensure that the Act's original purpose of providing socioeconomic assistance providing to those who need it is realised, then there is merit to the Bill. However, we cannot condone government's attempts to run the lottery themselves. That will be the second reason why we won't support this Bill.
Lastly, it is important to note that the realisation of the objectives will only become a reality if the systems and the people who run it work efficiently, equitably and without moral ambivalence. To ensure this, eternal vigilance is required from us as Members of Parliament. I thank you.
Hon Chairperson, Deputy President of the Republic, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of this august House, it is surprising indeed that today the opposition party has come here to grandstand about this Bill, whereas in the committee level we were in agreement. They said they would only have one objection, and would not vote against the Bill. It is written here in the committee report. Here is the committee report. It is here. That is why they are doing this today.
I know why they are doing this today. One of the measuring standards the DA uses for its members to come back to Parliament is to appear in the newspapers. Since this Bill was put, they were not going to appear in the newspapers. That is why they are objecting here in this House. That is why they are grandstanding. [Applause.]
What is very important is that we and the DA will never be synchronised ideologically. The ANC is the disciplined force of the left. That is why, at my first entrance to this debate, I would like to warn all the citizens of South Africa that the Lotto ticket cannot be part of your wealth portfolio. I am saying this, because when you take chances, one lotto ticket has only one chance in 40 million tickets to win. Therefore, you cannot put at risk the money for your children's food by buying a Lotto ticket.
It is critical that you control yourself and not spend on the lottery in an undisciplined manner, because at the end of the day you are not going to get rich. It is only going to be a few people who will get rich. Only one person is going to win the jackpot. The people who are going to pocket all the money are the private operators and the capitalists who will be running the Lotto itself. You cannot expose yourself to that.
That is why the DA is objecting to this Bill. For the first time, this Bill is addressing the issues affecting the poorest of the poor, just like the issue of the proactive funding. When you go all over the country, in the rural areas, you will find that there are children who have to swim across the rivers in order to get to school. However, with these provisions, the lottery and its commission will proactively go and build a bridge there to help the people of this country, without getting the application from anyone. That is why they are objecting to that. [Applause.]
What is very important here is that this is the month of the stalwart of the ANC, Bab' uOliver Tambo, who was an internationalist par excellence. When he was trotting all over the whole globe, the whole world respected him. That is why, as this Parliament, we have to do something. We have to learn from the best practices of the world.
The issue of the lottery did not begin here in South Africa. It actually started in 1507 in France, where the mayor of Paris tried to raise funds for infrastructure development. People were then made to pay tax in order to raise money for the infrastructure. This is not new in this country. It started a long time ago.
What is the difference here? The difference is that in France they knew the value of the lottery, and they let the state run it. That is why the Franaise des Jeux, LDJ, is the one running the lottery in France. That is why 72% of the lottery games in France are run by that state-owned entity. Why is it a problem when it has to happen in South Africa? It is because they know that these proceeds will go and address the developmental needs of our country. That is why they are objecting to that. [Applause.]
As I have already indicated, the ANC has a proud history. In Polokwane we adopted a policy of creating a developmental state, which will be in charge of a mixed economy. In a mixed economy you will have the state, labour, capital and civil society - all working together to raise the economy of the country.
Why is it a problem now when the state intervenes in running the lottery? The answer is very simple. When running the lottery, there are billions of rands involved. How much money goes to good causes? It is only 34%. This means that if a state-owned entity is running the lottery, those gains will go back to the fiscus. When they go back to the fiscus, they will then be redirected to the poorest of the poor. That is why they don't want a state organ to run a lottery. [Applause.] Those are their reasons. That is why they don't want that.
They come here and pretend to be fighting corruption. I am telling you the truth. One of the best state organs in this country is the Reserve Bank of SA. When the ANC took over the Reserve Bank in 1994, it was bankrupt and had a deficit of more than R25 billion. As we are speaking now, it is one of the best Reserve Banks in the world. Whose work was that? It is the work of this ANC-led government. [Applause.]
We are proud that this state organ is going to play a positive role. What is critical is that there are four criteria which the private operators must fulfil in order to win a licence. Firstly, they must implement the national government policy and priorities; secondly, they must grow local industries and procure goods from local manufacturers. As we are speaking now, part of the industrial policy action plan is to grow manufacturing in this country. When you go and buy a Lotto ticket, you must know that the paper which you are going to get has been produced in Greece and not in South Africa, whereas we have an advanced paper industry in this country. However, the private operators procured those goods abroad, at the expense of our own people and the workers in this country.
When we say that the state organ must run this thing, they know that black economic empowerment will be enhanced. One of the critical aspects was that the operator must support the promotion of broad-based black economic empowerment and transformation. We know that the DA does not support that, although for party politics and the elections they always say that they support the idea. That is why the hon James said that he supported diversified economic empowerment. He said that. They do not support broad- based black economic empowerment, because when you do that, you are uplifting the majority of the poor. When uplifting the majority of the poor from beyond the poverty line, they will never get a chance of running this country ever again. Hence, they are going to oppose it.
What is also critical is that the skills of running a lottery are based outside the country. One of the conditions we are putting here is that there must be skills and technology transfer. All the other operators failed dismally in that regard. That is why we, as the ANC - the disciplined force of the left, and not the department - said that if a company or the operator did not comply with these four aspects, the Minister must terminate that contract. Immediately after the Minister terminates the contract, a state organ can come and run it.
There are lots of state organs that can run it. Do you know the Industrial Development Corporation, the IDC? The economy of this country is strong because of the projects run by the IDC. We can give it to the IDC. They can run it the way they are running other businesses. [Applause.]
What is worrying is that hon Van der Merwe and hon McIntosh are saying that it is a sinister idea for a state organ to run the National Lottery. At the same time, they acknowledge that the Department of Trade and Industry is good and has capacity. The Department of Trade and Industry is also a state organ. What is critical is that, as South Africa, we must not beat ourselves. We are doing good and transforming this country, ensuring that there is broad participation in the whole economy of the country.
That is why I am calling upon all the sane members and patriotic people of this country and on this Parliament to support this Bill, because it is going to bring real transformation for our people on the ground. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I have very little time. There is only one issue. In France the lottery is operated by the Franaise des Jeux, which is a government-owned entity. In New Zealand the lottery is operated by a state-owned trade organisation called the New Zealand Lotteries Commission. In Canada the lottery is operated by an Interprovincial Lotteries Corporation, which is owned by the provinces. In Australia the operators are licensed at both state and territory level and consist of both government-owned and private entities.
We have been saying that we have only one model. Internationally, there are a few companies that run lotteries. They usually have Lotto at the end of their names. They form consortia with local interest groups and bid for the lottery. What we are saying is that, if the model does not yield sufficient gain in terms of all the criteria, local procurement, skills development and technology transfer and broad-based black economic empowerment, we should have the option to get a state agency to run the lottery and to contract one of these companies as a service provider. That is what we are saying.
I am afraid that we are at the time in the parliamentary cycle where rationality doesn't prevail. What we have heard is a lot of ideological rubbish, which is basically grandstanding around the election. From the position those members have taken on this Bill today, I don't think they are going to get many votes. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Hon members, are there any objections to the Bill being read a second time? I hear objections. Those in favour will say, Aye, and those against will say, No.
The Ayes have it.
Chairperson, I rise in accordance with Rule 26, asking you to determine whether there is a quorum in the House.
Hon members, the bells will be rung for five minutes in order to determine if we form a quorum or not. Please take your seats.
Hon members, to determine the quorum, I am going to request that we use the electronic system. To determine your presence, I am going to ask you to press any button in front of you.
Chairperson, I think it is important to bring it to your attention that the monitors on this side of the House are not working. [Interjections.]
Are you okay? Hon members, you may now press the buttons. Have you all pressed the buttons?
HON MEMBERS: Yes!
Order! Hon members, can we rerun this. Can we please press the buttons again? This time, can we press our buttons from our allocated seats? [Interjections.] Order! Order, please! Let's just press the buttons from our allocated seats. Have you done so?
HON MEMBERS: Yes! [Interjections.]
Okay, thank you. Order! We can raise our hands without shouting. Order! Hon members, can we just be quiet, please. Only one Whip from each party can assist. [Interjections.] Order! Order! I have been informed that even your noise can disturb the technology here. [Laughter.]
Hon members, order! I must say that we do not have a quorum. Therefore, I will have to suspend this sitting.
Chairperson, we only need a quorum if we are going to vote on Bills. We can proceed with the quorum of a third for other business of the House. The remaining items on the Order Paper are not Bills. I think it is only this one that is a Bill. The other matters are referrals.
Sir, that's what I meant when I said we should postpone the decision on this one. I now request the Secretary to read the Third Order.