Chairperson, hon members, thank you for your participation in the debate. Of course, I think that the very nature of this subject will always produce conflicting views and will always produce a heated debate.
I want to begin by addressing myself to some of the issues that were raised by the hon Douglas from the ACDP. I am quite sure that - as impassioned a representation as was made when, as this Parliament, we considered the issues of how, as a country, we want to deal with the issue of gambling - at that time, part of the exercise was to weigh what the best direction to take is to deal with the legalisation of gambling, creating an environment in which you can regulate it, and protecting a society and people who would like to participate in gambling, or having to deal with the challenges of an illegal dispensation for which you then have to find the most effective ways of how best to regulate that.
I think that as a country we made the choice in 1998 when the legislation on gambling was drafted, debated and adopted by Parliament. So, what we are doing today must be seen not as our having a fresh debate around whether or not we should have gambling as a legal activity in South Africa, but whether we are actually completing the process that was initiated then. At the time when the main legislation was drafted, debated and adopted, it just proved too difficult also to deal with the issue of Internet gambling. Therefore, a provision was built into the legislation to say, within two years of the main legislation being enacted, an amendment must be introduced that would then deal with the issue of Internet gambling. This is what we are doing today.
I felt like asking the hon Douglas whether he watches any movies, because movies and artistic productions - whether in the form of music or paintings - are things that reflect our reality. Artists are people that recreate our reality and make us look at ourselves. One of the things that you see when you watch some of these artistic productions, where an environment of illegal gambling is portrayed in a movie or a book, is the violence that goes with that in an uncontrolled environment. If you have watched the movie City of God, you'll know that the level of violence that you see there is something totally unthinkable. You just can't contend with the kind of violence that is to be found in certain parts of the underworld. So, I am saying the choices that we have to make also have to contend with some of that kind of reality.
I was also reminded, as the hon Douglas was addressing us, of the legislation on the choice on termination of pregnancy. The fact that we pilot legislation like that doesn't mean that, as people or as an organisation, we promote the issue of termination of pregnancy, but rather that we recognise that many young lives are lost in backstreet abortions that happen. So, in doing this, we are creating a safer environment within which this has to happen and we also say, at the same time, have education programmes that teach young people to protect themselves if they do want to engage in this kind of activity. These are things that must be properly understood and contextualised. I was reminded of all of those things as I was listening to the hon Douglas.
Further, let me say to the hon Ntwanambi that the issues around uMatshonisa and credit cards are matters that we have to deal with in terms of the National Credit Act. That is the primary legislation through which we seek to regulate and control that activity that takes place between a financial institution of whatever kind and a borrower that approaches it.
Through that legislation, we impose certain behaviours on the part of both borrowers and lenders, because it is important for the lender to also have a better understanding of the circumstances of the borrower so that you are able to make a decision or a judgment on the level of credit that that borrower can actually sustain. We equally impose certain obligations on the borrower himself or herself to provide correct and true information to the potential lender.
So, it is in terms of that that we have to regulate on issues about the issuing of credit cards and the extension of credit to borrowers. However, the proliferation of plastic money is a matter of concern in our society, and we are just suggesting that it is through that legislation that we should try to deal with it.
Of course, we already do it in this legislation, and we will do so also in the regulations. We are dealing with the issues of how we create protection. There is the issue, for instance, about limits. Already, we are saying that there will have to be limits on accounts by players. There will have to be electronic monitoring systems that will register the playing patterns and behaviour, and there will have to be notices on the screens that alert people to the issues of gambling problems and that there are remedies. You can go for treatment or you can embark on a voluntary withdrawal from participation. So, those are things that are already catered for. They will be strengthened when we introduce the regulations.
I think, on the issue of advertising that was raised by the hon Strachan we are willing to do further research to look deeper into this issue, but I think that part of the attempt - I think in the earlier stages - was to prohibit this, and this is something which arose because of the nature of this activity. You see, if one walks into a casino, people see you physically going into a casino, and even the people that work there would be able to identify that this person is here every day and this person, whenever he or she enters this premises, only leaves this place when their last cent has been swallowed by the machine. They can even begin to notice changes in the behaviour of the person, but with Internet gambling you can sit in your own little corner at home and nobody sees you.
So, it is because of the nature of the activity that, I think, there was a feeling that you have got to outlaw advertising in terms of this type of gambling. Of course, we had to contend with the issues that were correctly identified by this House which was to say that: Will this stand the test of constitutionality if you say you prohibit advertisements for Internet gambling when you actually allow advertising for other forms of gambling?
So, one would hope that the dispensation is one that is equitable, albeit one that also seeks to deal with the fact that this is a very specific type of gambling. We are willing to look further at that issue so that we can see, when we do the regulations, if there are things that we can do that would help us to strengthen where we need to strengthen and so on. Thank you for that intervention.
I think, regarding the issue of taxation, we would have to look at the experience also in terms of the main Gambling Act in relation to the land- based casinos because, as we have the dispensation currently, provinces are able to generate revenue from the fact that they license casinos. I think that we would have to adopt, perhaps, the same kind of approach. We would certainly also, as the Department of Trade and Industry, be having a particularly keen interest, as Treasury would be dealing with that legislation.
Let me thank all of the members. I think I have dealt with most of the issues. I had hoped that I could respond to some of the issues you raised, but thank you very much to everybody. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.