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.