WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:04.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                      UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

                              (Ruling)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before proceeding with notices of motion, I wish to give a ruling concerning a notice of motion given on Tuesday, 19 September. In that notice the hon Mr Gibson used the quotation: ``Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’’, to cast a reflection on another member by linking the quotation directly to a statement made by Deputy Minister Pahad.

Mr Gibson sought to justify his statement on the basis that he was merely quoting a recognised English saying. I wish to point out to him that it has often been ruled in this House that accusations are equally offensive and damaging if they are made indirectly or by using quotations. This is true even if, as was pointed out to us by Deputy Minister Matthews, the quotation is from a notable English author of the eighteenth century. [Interjections.]

In the normal course of events an unparliamentary expression in a notice of motion is edited out, and the member informed accordingly. In this instance, however, a point of order was raised at the first opportunity, and in those circumstances I regard it as appropriate that the words be withdrawn. Accordingly, I call upon the Chief Whip of the official opposition to withdraw his reflection on the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, the hon Deputy Minister is not a scoundrel and I have no problem with withdrawing my remark.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr K A MOLOTO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund was met with antiglobalisation protesters in Prague and in South Africa;

(2) believes that these institutions could effectively oversee the process of globalisation if there are mechanisms for meaningful participation by developing countries and greater transparency in decision-making;

(3) urges world leaders to move speedily in ensuring that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are transformed; and (4) calls on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to cancel the debt of the poor countries.

[Applause.]

Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes with disapproval the abuse of power by the ANC-led Vrede Transitional Local Council in its decision to allow political parties and individual members to use vehicles and other municipal facilities free of charge;

(2) regrets that the ANC is more and more fusing the roles of the party and the role of the Government in all its spheres thereby undermining the sound principles of democracy; and

(3) urges the Vrede TLC to withdraw this decision immediately, as this decision could be a criminal offence with dire consequences for the city council and the ratepayers of Vrede, and could lead to councillors having to reimburse the ratepayers for the corrupt and illegal misuse of the ratepayers’ property.

Mr M A MZIZI: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  hungry people need to eat, the homeless need to be sheltered and
       the jobless need to be employed;

   (b)  the present efforts to deal with these problems have not made an
       appreciable impact in resolving the crisis; and

   (c)  the crisis is, in fact, deepening and worsening with over 30 000
       jobs having been lost in the formal sector this year; and

(2) calls on this Government not to delay addressing this problem aggressively and with the utmost determination encouraging the resolution of differences in Nedlac thereby averting further destabilising strike action.

Mr D J SITHOLE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  with concern the ruling by the Pretoria High Court not to allow
       hundreds of Alexandra flood victims to move into houses built
       for temporary shelter on the grounds of Leeukop Prison; and

   (b)  that this ruling was made in favour of the Kyalami Ridge
       Environmental Association and residents citing lack of
       consultation, crime and environmental concern;

(2) believes that the poor have a constitutional right to shelter;

(3) commends the Government for affording temporary shelter to victims of the floods in Alexandra; and

(4) calls on the stakeholders to engage in a meaningful dialogue and reach a compromise that is in the interest of all.

[Applause.]

Dr P J RABIE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes with alarm the lack of investor confidence in South Africa in the light of the following: According to the latest figures from the South African Reserve Bank, foreign direct investment has decreased from R4,5 billion in the first quarter to R300 million in the second quarter of this year;

(2) is of the opinion that this is a shocking fact, because foreign direct investment is crucial to spur sustained growth in the South African economy and concomitant job creation; and

(3) urges the Government to reprimand Cosatu for its extremely uncalled- for and hostile verbal attacks on business at its seventh national congress, as it will only contribute towards further harming investor confidence and the creation of job opportunities, for which it obviously has no regard, and believes it is high time that Cosatu realises that foreign investors owe South Africa nothing.

Mr S J DE BEER: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes - (a) with dismay the reported use of the phrase ``one oppressor, one bullet’’ by a provincial office-bearer of the PAC; and

   (b)  the reported statements of the said office-bearer that the PAC
       condones the Tempe murders and, by implication, racially
       inspired violence;

(2) reaffirms its collective commitment to the peaceful resolution of all disputes by all political parties represented in the House;

(3) strongly condemns these deplorable statements as nothing other than hate-speech; and

(4) calls on the PAC to immediately and unambiguously discipline the office-bearer involved, in order to prove its commitment to peaceful race relations, especially in the run-up to the local government elections.

Mr J H NASH: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the nationwide strike which will take place in Swaziland
       tomorrow in protest against the country's proposed amendment to
       the labour relations Act; and

   (b)  that the New National Party and the Democratic Party have been
       making noises about the occupation of white farms in Zimbabwe,
       and are silent on the issue of the onslaught on workers' rights
       in Swaziland; and

(2) calls on the government of Swaziland and the unions to engage in meaningful discussions and reach a compromise that is in the interest of all Swazi people and the region as a whole.

[Applause.]

Mr S N SWART: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the ACDP:

That the House -

(1) recognises the beauty and uniqueness of the Cape floral kingdom;

(2) consequently welcomes the long-term strategic conservation plan for this area announced by Cape Action Plan for the Environment (Cape), which has been hailed as the most exciting development in the conservation of the region for the past 100 years;

(3) notes that this is the first time in the world that a conservation plan has been developed, which is aimed at protecting an entire floral kingdom by integrating social, economic and biodiversity concerns in the 90 000 square kilometers of the Cape floral kingdom; and

(4) commends Cape Action Plan for the Environment (Cape) for its outstanding study completed over the past two years.

Mrs M A A NJOBE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the death toll in the cholera outbreak in Empangeni, KwaZulu-
       Natal, has risen to 13; and

   (b)  more than a thousand people have been treated for the disease
       since it was first identified in the rural communities in
       northern KwaZulu-Natal;

(2) expresses its condolences to the families of the deceased; and

(3) calls on all communities to follow safety regulations, and to work with the local authorities to ensure that the outbreak of cholera is brought under control.

Mr V C GORE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Japanese government intends passing legislation to provide
       vouchers for IT training, where those over the age of 20 would
       be eligible for vouchers of about $56 to help defray the cost of
       courses on how to use PCs and the Internet; and

   (b)  the Democratic Alliance has long advocated the use of voucher
       system training and education; and

(2) calls on -

   (a)  the Minister of Education to investigate such an excellent
       scheme to ensure that South Africa does not fall on the wrong
       side of the digital divide; and

   (b)  the Government to seriously address the problem of South
       Africa's worsening position in the global race to become
       `connected', primarily caused by Telkom's reluctance to provide
       bandwidth to other players in the telecommunications sector.

[Applause.]

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) congratulates Globe and the Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism for its excellent conference on energy security;

(2) takes note of the warning that if current water usage on the continent and globe continue, we will have no usable water on the African continent by 2050; and

(3) requests the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry to take bold initiatives to highlight and avert this threat, to prevent us from repeating the Y2K panic, and to prevent the outbreak of even further violence, particularly in Africa, over water usage.

Mr C J MALULEKE-HLANEKI: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  on Tuesday, the Minister of Public Works, Stella Sigcau,
       launched a community-based public works project worth R2,7
       million to upgrade schools in northern KwaZulu-Natal; and

   (b)  the Public Works department has invested over R1,1 billion in
       community-based poverty alleviation projects in rural areas
       since 1996;

(2) acknowledges initiatives by the ANC-led Government to embark on projects that improve the living conditions of the poorest of the poor; and

(3) congratulates the Minister on this great mission.

[Applause.]

Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem van die skokkende feit dat die graad van wreedheid van plaasaanvalle in Suid-Afrika ernstig toeneem as die volgende in ag geneem word:

   (a)  sedert 1994 is meer as 900 mense in plaasaanvalle vermoor;

   (b)  ondanks die moratorium op misdaadstatistiek dui verslae van
       assessore in die versekeringsbedryf daarop dat die geweld wat
       met plaasaanvalle gepaard gaan, aan die toeneem is;

   (c)  dit is nie net boere wat deurloop onder die geweld nie, maar
       plaaswerkers is toenemend die teiken van plaasaanvalle; en

   (d)  die geweld plaas toenemend sielkundige druk op mense op die
       platteland en lei tot 'n weerstand daarteen om die beroep van
       landbou te beoefen en dit hou gevolglik ernstige gevolge in vir
       die ekonomie en indiensneming op die platteland; en

(2) ‘n beroep op die Regering doen om erns te maak met die saak aangesien nie net menselewens op die spel is nie, maar ook die verarming van mense op die platteland weens die ekonomiese impak van die geweld. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr A S van der Merwe: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes the shocking fact that the degree of brutality of farm attacks in South Africa is increasing significantly if the following is taken into account:

   (a)  more than 900 people have been murdered in farm attacks since
       1994;

   (b)  despite the moratorium on crime statistics, reports by assessors
       in the insurance industry indicate that the violence associated
       with farm attacks is on the increase;

   (c)  not only farmers are suffering as a result of the attacks, as
       farmworkers are increasingly becoming the target of farm
       attacks; and

   (d)  the violence is placing increasing psychological pressure on
       people in rural areas and is leading to a resistance to
       practising the profession of farming, which has serious
       consequences for the economy and employment in the rural areas;
       and

(2) appeals to the Government to treat this issue seriously, since not only human lives are at stake, but also the impoverishment of people in the rural areas as a result of the economic impact of the violence.]

Miss O N MNDENDE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) urges the Government, in dealing with local government in rural areas, to incorporate the good intentions of section 185 of our Constitution which deals with the promotion and protection of cultural, religious and linguistic communities;

(2) warns against the implication that the Government is deliberately replacing the indigenous knowledge system under traditional leaders without their consent, as we all hear from the media, by imposing western systems under the guise of democracy and transformation;

(3) urges the Government to try and seek common ground between these schools of thought at an equal level, and create a healthy dialogue with no preconceived solutions from an assumed superior structure, so that there are no matters arising after the elections; and

(4) acknowledges the truth that proper dialogue will be effective only if the roots of all involved are respected and promoted.

Prof I J MOHAMED: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes with sadness the death of four miners following a rockfall at the Kloof gold mine;

(2) expresses its sympathy and condolences to the family and colleagues of the miners killed in the rockfall;

(3) commends the Minister of Minerals and Energy, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, for setting up an annual review process to inspect safety at mines; and (4) calls on the Ministry to meet with all stakeholders in an attempt to find a speedy resolution to reducing mining accidents throughout South Africa.

[Applause.]

                  DEATH OF MR WILLEM VAN SCHALKWYK

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mnr D H M GIBSON: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:

Dat die Huis -

(1) simpatie en meegevoel betuig met die familie van mnr Willem van Schalkwyk, die veldwagter wat die naweek gesterf het in die brandbestrydingsoperasie in die Montagu-pas in die Suid-Kaap;

(2) dank betuig aan alle individue wat in lewensgevaarlike omstandighede help om brand te bestry;

(3) hulde bring aan diegene wat met hul lewe boet in die uitvoering van hul belangrike taak;

(4) kennis neem van die wegholbrande in die Suid-Kaap; en

(5) ‘n beroep op die Regering doen om alles in sy vermoë te doen om sodanige brande te voorkom en te bestry. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)

[Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, I move without notive:

That the House -

(1) expresses sympathy and condolences with the family of Mr Willem van Schalkwyk, the game ranger who died over the weekend during the fire- fighting exercise in the Montagu Pass in the Southern Cape;

(2) expresses gratitude to all those individuals who help to fight fires in life-threatening circumstances;

(3) honours those who lose their lives in the execution of their important task;

(4) notes the runaway fires in the Southern Cape; and

(5) requests the Government to do everything within its means to prevent and fight such fires.]

Agreed to.

                             NEW MEMBER

                           (Announcement)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That the vacancy caused by the termination of membership of Dr E A Schoeman has been filled by the nomination of Mr J W le Roux with effect from 13 September 2000. The member has made and subscribed the oath in the Speaker’s office.

Perhaps hon members would like to see the hon Mr Le Roux. Would the hon member please stand up. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Mr Chairperson, can I request the hon member Johnny de Lange to prepare his punch for that new hon member? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! You can arrange that outside the House. [Laughter.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, may I address you on that point of order and say that Mr Johnny de Lange is obviously needed again because Mr Manie Schoeman said yesterday that he has not joined the ANC. [Laughter.]

                           POINTS OF ORDER

                              (Ruling)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Before we proceed to the first Order of the Day, I would like to deal with two points of order raised on Tuesday, 19 September 2000, by the hon L T Landers and the hon A C Nel, respectively, during a speech by the hon Mr N S Bruce. I think they are all present in the House.

The two hon members objected to the hon Mr Bruce saying: ``Yet the Minister’s friends just keep on getting richer,’’ and then continuing his speech by referring to, among others, the chairperson of the National Lotteries Board.   Mr Landers objected on the grounds that Mr Bruce’s statement reflected on the integrity of the chairperson of the National Lotteries Board, and Mr Nel on the grounds that it cast a serious reflection on the integrity of the Minister of Trade and Industry.

Section 58 of the Constitution affords members of the National Assembly freedom of speech, and this freedom of speech is qualified only by the rules of order which the National Assembly imposes on itself. Remarks by members can only be regarded as unparliamentary if they are made about another member, or if they are made against an office bearer whose removal from office is dependent upon a decision of this House. It should be noted that the chairperson of the National Lotteries Board does not fall within that category of office bearers.

Concerning the point of order raised by the hon Mr Landers, I have to concede that the reference to the chairperson of the National Lotteries Board is not unparliamentary. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon member that the remark was perhaps unfair in that no substantiation was offered, and the public office bearer concerned is unable to defend himself. I should like to repeat an appeal made previously in this House that the right of members to freedom of speech should not be lightly used to make disparaging remarks about specific members of the public or public office bearers.

Concerning the hon Mr Nel’s point of order, I have studied the Hansard, and I am satisfied that the remark by the hon Bruce was not directed at the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry, and does not directly or indirectly reflect upon the Minister’s integrity.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS - NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

          DELAY IN PAYING OUT PROCEEDS OF NATIONAL LOTTERY

                      (Subject for Discussion)

Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Chairman, on 25 June last year, President Mbeki, referring to the National Lottery in his first speech as President in this Parliament (Hansard, Joint Sittings, 1999, col 12) said:

In a few months, it will be possible to allocate even more resources to the promotion of the good causes to which the Government and institutions … are committed.

Now, more than a year later, nothing has come of that promise. What has happened since that undertaking by President Mbeki to this Parliament? It has been more than a year of contradictions and broken promises. Here are the other contradictions. Firstly, the Minister of Trade and Industry, normally one of the more able Ministers, claimed that the distribution of the proceeds of the national lottery had been delayed because the amount in the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund was below projections. Yet, Uthingo’s commercial director argued: ``We budgeted for R50 million per week, and that is what we are selling.’’ With such contradictory statements, who are we to believe?

Secondly, a senior member of the National Lotteries Board, in answering criticism that the National Lotteries Board should have created a workable distribution plan before starting the national lottery, said: ``Nobody knew how it would turn out because it is our first national lottery.’’ Yet Uthingo toured Britain to study the lottery operations in that country, and returned to South Africa confident that preparations were well on track for the South African lottery. The British lottery only began payouts two years after the start of its operations, so Uthingo should have expected these problems and made appropriate provisions. When statements about lack of knowledge are made, and are clearly contradicted by the facts, the question of credibility again arises.

Thirdly, the Minister of Trade and Industry, as quoted by Sapa on 18 July, denied ever having forced a charity to close down its fundraising schemes, saying all that had been done was to require schemes to register with the National Lotteries Board''. Yet, according to Sapa on 14 September, Minister Erwin announced this month that charities could expect to receive interim payments from the national lottery to assist them in their financial difficultiesdue to the closure of their fundraising lotteries’’. In addition, the GCIS, when briefing a Cabinet meeting on 20 September, stated that ``Cabinet approved the implementation of interim measures to assist charities experiencing financial difficulties due to the closure of fundraising institutions’’. Which statement is true?

Fourthly, the Lotteries Act stipulates that private society lotteries, whose revenue is less than R1 million may spend no more than 50% on lottery expenses and, for revenue exceeding R1 million, they may spend 10%. Yet, the national lottery, according to the Financial Mail, spends more than 17% of its revenue on costs. Why does this Government insist on holding organisations and individuals to standards it does not require of itself?

Fifthly, following the Uthingo study tour to the United Kingdom, Uthingo’s communications director said that Camelot, the UK lottery operator, had shown, since 1994, that it could run an efficient and profitable lottery. Yet Camelot recently lost the right to run the UK lottery because of public outrage about Camelot’s directors unduly enriching themselves. It has been argued repeatedly by this Government that the delay in payouts in South Africa can be justified by the two-year delay in the UK payouts. But just because the British lottery took two years is no excuse, especially when Uthingo was supposed to have studied the British model. All that Uthingo and the Department of Trade and Industry seem to have done is to copy British mistakes. Additionally, it is reported that in Britain charities continue their normal fundraising activities. It was not allowed here. This excuse suddenly surfaced when Government was unable to meet its own payout deadline - set by itself and nobody else - initially set for July, then extended to October, and now pushed forward to early next year.

The position of the Government on the lottery seems about as clear as its stance on the link between HIV and Aids. [Interjections.] These contradictions and hollow promises must now stop. It is incumbent upon the hon the Minister as the responsible Minister to clarify these issues for the public.

Instead of doublespeak, the Minister must confirm the following facts. Firstly, there is currently estimated to be more than R300 million waiting to be disbursed from the lottery trust to so-called good causes. What is the exact amount? Secondly, it is reported that when a member of the public spends R2,50 buying a Lotto ticket, 31 cents goes to VAT, 43 cents to costs, 109 cents to prize payouts, and only 65 cents to good causes. When it is accepted that the pool of disposable income is strictly limited, it can be convincingly argued that millionaires are being created at the expense of the poor when payouts remain unpaid.

The SA National Council for Child Welfare, a well-known organisation, lost R1 million in income from the Viva Trust in the first two months after the lottery started. In a statement they argued, and I quote:

It is unacceptable that no distribution agency has been appointed to allocate funding from the National Lottery to charities, and that charities now find themselves in a situation where services to children who are in dire need have to be threatened and curtailed. Whilst fundraising from various sources is diminishing, children are being abused, abandoned, orphaned by the HIV/Aids epidemic and living in shocking conditions of poverty throughout the country.

The community chest in the Western Cape alone has over the past nine years raised an average of R2,8 million per annum through scratch cards, which amount has been distributed to some 450 other welfare organisations in the Western Cape. While poor and sick people and many children are suffering, the Government is once again intellectualising inefficiency.

Nie-regeringsorganisasies, en organisasies wat doelwitte het met lofwaardige oogmerke, bestaan merendeels uit vrywillige werkers wat dit doen omdat hulle sterk voel oor ‘n bepaalde saak. Ons indruk is dat baie vrywilligers in hierdie sektor nou gedemotiveerd raak omdat hulle inisiatief nou beperk word en hulle ‘n administratiewe las opgelê word wat tydsgewys dikwels bo hulle vermoë is.

Dit sal ‘n jammerlike dag wees as ware medemenslikheid en die wil om vrywillig tot diens te wees van jou medemens doodgemaak word deur die Nasionale Lotery en die burokratiese rompslomp daarvan. Dit is immers wat ‘n gemeenskap en ‘n nasie saambind en sterk maak. Die Regering moet nie die spreekwoordelike Groot Broer word wat naderhand die wil en die vermoë van mense om deur hulle eie aksies goed te doen vernietig nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Nongovernmental organisations, and organisations with praiseworthy objectives, consist for the most part of voluntary workers who are involved because they feel strongly about a particular issue. Our impression is that many volunteers in this sector are now becoming demotivated because their initiative is being limited and an administrative burden is being imposed on them, something which is often, in terms of time, impossible for them to cope with.

It will be a sad day when true fellow-feeling and the desire to serve one’s fellow human beings voluntarily are killed by the National Lottery and its bureaucratic red tape. After all, this is what unites and strengthens a community and a nation. Government should not become the proverbial Big Brother who eventually destroys the will and the ability of people to do good by their own actions.]

Curiously enough, we now hear that emergency or interim payments will begin shortly. With the local government elections scheduled for November this year, the timing of this recent announcement about interim or emergency payments starting in October must be questioned. [Interjections.] It strains the bounds of credibility to expect the public to believe that this very convenient timing was not the calculated result of narrow ANC political considerations, and I will now argue why. [Interjections.]

We are all familiar with the tired Government argument that payouts were delayed by the need to accumulate sufficient capital in the lottery trust to ensure sustainable levels of distribution. This argument is particularly feeble when one recalls that President Mbeki, in his opening address to Parliament in June 1999, announced that payouts were due to begin in early 2000, a statement later contradicted by Mr Randal Williams, the Deputy Director of Gambling and Lotteries, who announced that payments should begin at the end of October, a date he later revised to early 2001.

Now, the Minister himself was quoted as saying the following: ``It is regrettable that a junior official was quoted and his reference to March 2001 refers to an optimistic projection.’’ Assuming that the need to build sufficient capital reserves was known in advance, I want to know from the Minister why such misleading announcements were made and why charities were prevented from fundraising during this building period.

One of the fundamental concerns about the national lottery is the fact that the distribution agency has yet to be established. If Government and Uthingo studied lottery models and international examples prior to the formation of the National Lottery, why then, I want to ask the Minister, were the details of the formation of the distribution agency and distribution criteria not established long in advance of the awarding of the operating licence?

I want to tell the Minister that this concern is mirrored in the concerns of the hundreds of NGOs and charities hoping to benefit from the eventual lottery payout. These organisations are extremely suspicious about the delay in announcing the distribution criteria. Could the Minister give this House and the public of South Africa the unequivocal assurance that the distribution of lottery revenues will not be dictated by narrow political agendas?

Amongst those organisations to whom we have spoken, there is this constant refrain: The belief that it is mostly those charities and organisations with political links to the ANC that will benefit from these moneys. [Interjections.] Members must wait for the example. The Minister must rest assured that the public and opposition parties will scrutinise the list of beneficiaries, when it is finally announced, to ensure that equity and fairness rather than favour and patronage are the principles upon which distribution is decided. The fact that the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund was one of the first organisations to be granted permission by the National Lotteries Board to conduct its own lottery does not augur well for these principles. [Interjections.]

I want to say to the Minister that the national lottery could and should have provided an injection of funding to NGOs, assisted in major poverty alleviation and made a significantly positive impact on the living conditions of millions of South Africans. Instead, through political and administrative bungling and mismanagement, the lottery has simply become a major disappointment and an embarrassment to both this Government and the Minister.

The lottery debacle leaves the public wondering whether a better slogan for the national lottery might not be ``Tata ma chance, tata ma mess’’. [Laughter.] It is up to Minister Erwin to convince this House today that the lottery will not continue to be part of this litany of failures, and that efficiency, fairness and good management will eventually be the hallmarks of the national lottery. If the Minister fails in this task, the public of South Africa might well be excused for believing that the South African lottery has much in common with the state lottery of Zimbabwe in which - surprise, surprise - one of the biggest winners was Zimbabwean President Mr Robert Mugabe.

We would like to call on the Minister to make the people of South Africa the winners of the South African lottery, and he must do it now, today. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, the mess is not in the national lottery, rather I would think, it is in the New NP. [Interjections.] The questions before this House should be whether South Africa has a lottery that is supported by the greater majority of its people, whether our national lottery is sustainable and able to fund good causes which establish projects which themselves are sustainable and meet the demands of our new democracy, and whether the National Lotteries Board has built up sufficient reserves in the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund to fund good causes in a satisfactory manner.

An HON MEMBER: What is a good cause?

Mr L T LANDERS: If the hon member wants to know what a good cause is, he should go to our library here in Parliament and read the legislation that we are talking about. Maybe the hon member will then learn something about what a good cause is. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, no dialogue in the House, please. Continue, hon member.

Mr L T LANDERS: When Parliament considered the Lotteries Bill in 1997, the distribution of net proceeds of the National Lottery was one of the most important aspects of that Bill. Of late, certain pressure groups have complained that they have not received the funding that is due to them from the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund.

Allow me to place a few facts before this House so that we can debate this matter from an informed basis. It was never the intention that the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund would be the sole source of support for NGOs and charitable organisations.

These organisations were given sufficient notice of Government’s intention to establish a single National Lottery and such organisations ought to have taken the necessary steps to ensure their own sustainability. The implication is that, were the National Lottery to collapse tomorrow, these organisations would also collapse. [Interjections.] In as much as we were warned … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Mr L T LANDERS: In as much as we were warned by Richard Branson not to let our National Lottery be a honey pot for only a few, we should be just as wary of funding unsustainable projects or allowing the funds from our lottery to be used primarily for the administrative costs of NGOs and charitable organisations.

To this end, checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that even the disbursement of funds for good causes receives the support of those millions of people who participate in the National Lottery every week, but also those whom the good causes are meant to help. [Interjections.]

It would seem to make sense to me to have different categories of institutions or good causes to whom the funds could be disbursed. There could be a category of organisations to whom funds could be disbursed annually, a second category of organisations to whom funds could be disbursed quarterly and a third category to whom funds could be disbursed as a result of natural disasters, as in the case of the Manenberg and Mount Ayliff tornado disasters. [Interjections.] This approach would make for proper planning, both by the proposed distribution agencies and the NGOs and charitable organisations to whom the funds are disbursed for good causes.

It is now about nine months … [Interjections.] The hon member should listen carefully … [Interjections.] Not the hon member Mr Lee, his colleague next to him. [Interjections.] I want the hon member to listen carefully.

I want to say to the hon member Mr Van Schalkwyk that it is now about nine months since our National Lottery was launched. At about this time the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry should be conferring with other relevant Ministers, that is the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Welfare and Population Development, the Minister of Sport and Recreation, the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology and the premiers of all the provinces in order to appoint or establish distribution agencies which will disburse the funds in the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund.

These Ministers and premiers, together with the National Lotteries Board, should agree on the criteria and conditions upon which applicants for funds are granted such funds, as well as the competence of applicants to handle the funds they may receive. Finally, when all the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Lotteries Act are met, or are able to be met, only then can we consider the disbursement of the proceeds of our National Lottery.

Clearly, therefore, there may well be those organisations which deserve consideration because they may be in dire financial straits. Section 31 of the Lotteries Act makes provision for the allocation of lotteries’ funds for miscellaneous purposes. It would seem to me that in such cases the hon the Minister could make provision for the funding of such organisations.

However, we want to sound a warning here. Such an allocation should only be made after the necessary probity check, audits and other investigations, so as to ensure that no Tom, Dick, Trevor Lee or Mary can simply apply for a grant in terms of section 31 without fulfilling the necessary requirements. It is also important to place on record that NGOs and charitable organisations should not operate on a shoestring budget basis in the hope that they will be bailed out by an allocation of funds from the lottery.

Chairperson, you gave a ruling with regard to the comments by the hon Nigel Bruce. [Interjections.] I agree. It is not my intention to question your ruling, but I do want to address the hon Nigel Bruce. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Are you happy about the lottery?

Mr L T LANDERS: The hon Gibson must listen very carefully to what I have to say.

The hon Nigel Bruce made some very disparaging remarks about the chairperson of the lotteries board from this podium. In my view, he abused the power of this podium. I want to say to him …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I have ruled on that matter. Can you please address the House on the subject before the House.

Mr L T LANDERS: I am addressing the subject at hand, Chairperson. The name of the hon chairperson of the National Lotteries Board was brought into this debate. We challenge the hon Nigel Bruce to say what he said about the chairperson outside the precincts of this Parliament, if he has the guts to do so. [Interjections.]

Our National Lottery is a national asset. When we consider motions such as the one before us, it should be done in a manner that is responsible and that does not detract from or negate the importance of our National Lottery as a national asset. Millions of South Africans wait with bated breath every Saturday evening for the result, except Doug Gibson. [Interjections.] He is off doing something else on a Saturday evening. And the excitement with which South Africans wait for the results of the National Lottery every Saturday is commendable and we want to thank the members of the National Lotteries Board. We also want to thank Uthingo for bringing that excitement into the homes of our people. [Applause.]

Mr N S BRUCE: Mr Chairperson, what a callous way to refer to our charities, as pressure groups. We need to be clear what is happening economically when a government awards itself a lottery monopoly and then fails to keep the conditions and the privilege which it itself has bestowed, especially when this impacts on the poor, the sick and the suffering. [Interjections.]

A government gambling monopoly is a disguised means of taxing the poor man who is out of work, the pensioner who is hoping to secure some small comforts and the indigent who is mesmerised by the vagaries of fortune. Go and look at those who frequent the Disneyworld of our plastic casinos or are standing in the queues for lottery tickets. They are not rich, they are not the white middle-aged male capitalist who gets things done in this economy, nor are they the easily exploitable junkie from the Far East, with a suspect Yen and an eye for a chance and a thumb in his karaoke. Those who buy lottery tickets are ordinary folk on whom most governments would hesitate to impose a special tax intended to help the less fortunate, who have no choice but to depend upon charity.

Of course, Government seeks justification for this disguised tax by perpetuating the myth that a state lottery soaks the rich to help the poor. [Interjections.] But it does not. It soaks the poor instead, and enables those who enjoy the patronage of running the lottery to get rich in the process. [Interjections.]

Regardless of having soaked the poor and enriched the elite, the hon the Minister should be keeping his promise. That promise was to pass on the gains to those whom this Government caused to need them most: the charities that were precluded from their own fundraising by a government which claimed it knew better how to raise money. [Interjections.]

So it is all very well now for the Minister to explain, six months after some charities were forced by National Lotteries Board regulations to stop fundraising, that lottery revenues first have to build up and stabilise before the charities will receive any disbursements. This suggests that lottery revenues have been substantially below expectation, despite the monopoly. After six months of paying out substantial prize moneys, the lottery is still unsure of its revenues.

Previously, the hon the Minister urged charities to continue their fundraising activities in the meantime. That was never practical. To run other smaller charities, limited by the regulations of the National Lotteries Board, in the face of enormous prizes exciting the avarice of every prospective participant, would be futile.

It is, of course, difficult for charities to protest, because what they will eventually get, if they are admitted into this magic circle, is in the gift of a distributive authority under Government patronage. There are those who have benefited from the lottery, in addition to those who have won prizes. I have nothing against Mr Joe Foster, the National Lotteries Board chairman. I do not intend to say that he has, in any way, acted in an untoward manner. However, the fact remains that his union has a direct interest in the lottery operating company, Uthingo. [Interjections.] He must be benefiting from it.

Another beneficiary is Humphrey Khoza, the unfailingly unctuous CEO of Uthingo, which is 30%-owned by G-Tech, the supplier of lottery equipment, and Camelot, amongst others, which recently lost gambling concessions in Britain after their directors were accused of enriching themselves. [Interjections.] Uthingo’s margins are modest, but its cash flows are enormous. Would it not be equitable, while charities are being starved, for Uthingo to be subject to a special lottery tax like the two large assurance companies which were hit by a special demutualisation tax? [Interjections.]

The DTI’s ineptitude does not end with the lottery. It has licensed four limited payout operators who spent R400 million on equipment, but the hon the Minister would not allow them to trade. Eleven deadlines have passed since the establishment of the National Gambling Board. The next one is in March. [Interjections.]

The Minister says he is not there to protect licensees from commercial risk, but that is disingenuous. It is not a commercial risk. It is bureaucratic failure. The consequence is that the hon the Minister has lost R500 million in levies to the provinces, not to mention depriving the fiscus of VAT revenues and company tax. [Interjections.]

Regulation is applied by the DTI at times with such arrogance, absence of vision and lack of consultation that it is hardly surprising that investors are wary of engaging in this country. [Interjections.] The lottery debacle is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in the Department of Trade and Industry, which should be of equal concern to Government. [Applause.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Mr Chairman, I have no intention of embroiling myself in the quarrel between the hon Bruce and the hon Landers. I will leave that to the hon Johnny de Lange and Manie Schoeman, and see if they can sort it out. [Laughter.] I think that this time we would rather sit on the sidelines.

The IFP is very concerned about the delays regarding the payout of the welfare portion of the Lotto proceeds. With this in mind, the IFP put a question to the hon the Minister about three weeks ago, which was tabled last week. I think that this question, together with other pressures put on the Minister and Uthingo, resulted in his more favourable response last week about interim or emergency payments.

This we welcome, although it is a most belated statement. Welfare and other organisations that could benefit from Lotto payouts were practically forced to cease raffles and other forms of competition in favour of the more practical Lotto with its possible windfalls for the welfare organisations.

Few hon members would know that prior to my involvement in politics in 1981 I was actively involved in the welfare sector. As administrative manager of the National Council for Child and Family Welfare, I became the secretary of the combined national welfare organisations. One of our greatest achievements at that time was to change the format of the subsidisation formula of welfare organisations, resulting in an almost 100% improvement in the government payout to these national welfare organisations.

At that time public utilities and the private sector also ran competitions on behalf of national welfare organisations. The most well-known of these were the Springbok Radio welfare fund, and the Sunday Times charity crossword competition, as well as other toys-for-joy competitions.

Together with the late Tertius Myburgh of the Sunday Times, we established the formula of distribution. In general terms, the main beneficiaries were the national welfare organisations, which then, in turn, had to distribute and prove their distribution to their affiliated societies across the country. I can remember that our escape from the maze of demands was to resort to the approved welfare posts subsidised by the government. At least with regard to the National Council for Child and Family Welfare, the aged, the blind, the deaf and cripple care, we found that they were all supportive of the formula thus being created. Amongst several members in this honourable House that assisted with this process, I can remember the hon Dr Jassat, the hon Cas Saloojee, the hon Farouk Cassim and the hon Premier Winkie Direko of the Free State.

We do not underestimate the task of the Minister and, from experience, we do not envy him the formidable task of trying to keep the welfare organisations happy, as well as being a sober judge when the moneys have to be distributed. We are looking forward to receiving the distribution formula from the hon the Minister and we accept that it will have to be adjusted continuously even after it has been announced.

In conclusion, I must ask, on behalf of one of my colleagues: How is it possible for an hon member to spend R1 000 on Lotto tickets and then win nothing worthwhile out of his or her 400 tickets? I would take it that the response of the hon the Minister would be that my colleague is a great donor to the welfare organisations. And for reasons beyond my control, I will not disclose the hon colleague’s name, but just sympathise with his misfortune at this stage. [Interjections.]

I trust that the Lotto will go a long way in alleviating the plight of the welfare organisations.

Mr C T FROLICK: Mr Chairman, hon members, the National Lottery, under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry, was launched with a great deal of excitement and expectation. The Saturday evening game show on television attracts millions of viewers hoping to win the big jackpot. Such was the interest in the long-awaited and long-overdue launch that even in this House a debate was held on the institution of the lottery.

However, the public interest also lies in the distribution of lottery proceeds, as to who will benefit, by how much and who makes these decisions. Justifiably, individual participants want the reassurance that they are truly contributing to deserving causes. It appears that the National Lottery has not generated the amount of funds that the Government initially expected it would.

High expectations were created amongst charities and NGOs regarding the expected outcome. In effect, the message went out to all charities that they would be funded from this new super-fund flowing from the National Lottery and, by implication, that no other form of funding for charities would be required in future. Whether intentional or not, this message has done a great deal of harm to charities and other sources of funding have dried up, whilst all involved expected huge funds from the lottery.

At the same time, it is politically irresponsible to try and score points on the plight of the poor and the needy. Such rhetoric will lead to a mindset of entitlement and the expectations amongst the needy that South Africa is a super-welfare state. Those who aim to score these political points would do well to recognise the difference between empowerment, entitlement and addressing imbalances of the past.

The proceeds of the National Lottery must not be confused with Government’s responsibility to deliver certain constitutionally mandated basic services. Proceeds from the National Lottery should be a bonus, not a replacement, for existing social welfare initiatives. These proceeds should be targeted through specific projects and should not simply amount to handouts. Projects must be launched by the Government to ensure that potential beneficiaries are empowered in order to improve their lives permanently, instead of creating a class of perpetually dependent citizens.

The UDM urges that the following three measures feature strongly in the management of these funds. Firstly, measurable and quantifiable fund distribution must be implemented. Secondly, the process of distribution must be completely transparent in order to allow for continuous scrutiny as to who receives what. Lastly, exact timeframes for payouts should be set and kept. These measures should go a long way to allay the concerns of all involved. [Applause.]

Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, the ACDP notes with disappointment, but not with surprise, that no lottery funds have yet been distributed to charities and organisations urgently needing the funds. Donations from the public to charities have dropped dramatically as South Africans have been misled into thinking that buying lottery tickets is donating to charity.

The ACDP appeals to the public to give directly to charities that are contributing visibly to the uplifment of their communities, as the large majority of money spent on the lottery goes to costs incurred by glittering TV programmes and large boards of trustees and administrators. The ACDP has always contended that on issues of chance and speculation, as promoted by the gambling industry, trouble never lurks far behind. Direct Government involvement in the distribution process is another major concern. Lottery money is after-tax discretionary money, and Government cannot possibly have a say in the distribution of these funds.

South Africa has well organised charities in almost every field, with a proud record of cost-effective distribution of resources. Many are concerned that Government’s involvement could result in the selection of politically correct causes most beneficial to itself. Government has also proved its inability to direct money to the poor and this is clearly illustrated by the Department of Welfare not even distributing the money allocated to poverty relief in its last budget. Government’s only involvement should be to ensure financial accountability and control. The National Lottery exploits the poor and young, robbing them of their natural ambition. That this is being done in the name of charity in order to salve the conscience is deplorable.

Lastly, we find the comments by the DP and other parties which, as far as I know, voted for the National Lottery, rather strange. The ACDP is opposed to the Lotteries and Gambling Board Act. [Interjections.] We believe gambling is destructive and cannot contribute to building this nation. The lottery does not create wealth, but rather consumes it. [Applause.]

Mr V C GORE: Chairperson, how society has been able to break free from its inhumanity to mankind, is in the manner in which it treats its most vulnerable members - persons with disabilities, the elderly and children.

In South Africa, the disabled community constitutes approximately 6,5% of our population. A 1986 Human Sciences Research Council survey showed that only 0,26% of our disabled population in South Africa were economically active. The question is: How do 2,5 million people survive if they have no formal income? The answer is simple. They rely on the generosity of their fellow countrymen and women.

The National Lottery, when it was proposed, appeared to be an excellent idea to the disabled sector. It meant that these organisations could spend less time on fundraising and concentrate on their core businesses - helping out the more marginalised members of our society. What has happened in fact is the exact opposite. With the delay in paying out proceeds from the National Lottery, these organisations are now facing financial ruin and the people that they are meant to help are the ones that are suffering. One only has to look at the Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities in KwaZulu-Natal, a previously highly successful organisation which ran 20 protected work environments and projects, and directly serviced 4 000 disabled people. It now faces imminent closure due to financial constraints. Their simple crime was to focus on service provision, their core business, hoping the National Lottery would fund them.

I would now like to turn my attention to another important aspect in South African life - sport. In just over a month’s time 64 of our disabled athletes will leave our shores to participate in the Para-Olympic Games. Only through the sterling efforts of organisations such as Napcosa funding was found to foot the bill of approximately R10 million over four years. In direct contrast to this, the British Para-Olympics team is sending 300 athletes to Sydney, funded almost exclusively through the British national lottery scheme. We as a country cannot expect our athletes to bring back the medals if we do not want to invest in their future. Have we as a country been able to break free from our own inhumanity? It is difficult to believe so when we consider the inability of Government to provide a helping hand to one of the most deserving sectors of our community - disabled persons. [Applause.]

Mr D LOCKEY: Chairperson, as one of the most loyal supporters of the National Lottery I think I am very well qualified to speak in this debate. I want to differ with the hon Van Schalkwyk. My experience, judging from the long queues every Saturday night when I go and purchase my Lotto ticket, is that the Lotto is a runaway success and anything but a failure.

I also want to take issue with the hon Bruce. The hon Bruce made this pathetic racist observation that it is only white males that are creating wealth in this society. [Interjections.] This remark is typical of that old English, colonial, loyal superiority complex and that explains exactly where the hon Bruce comes from. We reject that remark with the contempt it deserves.

Secondly, the hon Bruce also made an impassioned plea here that the lottery is an additional tax on the poor, but in the same breath he is arguing for limited payout machine operators to be allowed to start operating. So it is not clear from this ambivalence in his argument what exactly his position on the issue of gaming is.

The reason there could not be an immediate payment of the lottery proceeds has been given over and over again, in this House and in the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry. The Minister has given his assurance that the distribution agencies for the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund should be fully operational by early next year. These agencies are vital for identifying the charities that will qualify for the proceeds. These agencies are also entrusted with the task of ensuring that there are proper systems in place for these charities to account for the money that is allocated to them.

We all know that the New NP has a history of spending money like a drunk, so it is not surprising that any insistence on checks and balances is something they do not see the need for or, quite frankly, do not understand. We all know that the NP government built thousands of toilets in the veld under the pretext of doing something good for the people. We all know that they squandered R15 billion on Mossgas in a feeble attempt to circumvent the oil embargo.

We, in this Government, have insisted on ensuring that there is fiscal discipline. In 1994, when the ANC took over, it inherited a budget deficit of 10,4% of GDP. Today that budget deficit has been reduced to less than 3%. This is a remarkable achievement if one takes into consideration that over the past six years we have embarked on the biggest reconstruction and development programme that this country has ever seen. We have built more than a million homes. Coming back to the National Lottery, it has also been explained that the reason why funds could not be allocated immediately is that we want to raise a sufficient amount of money to build up the reserve so that we can ensure that the distribution system is stable and that the disbursements to charities are not greater than the collection of funds through the lottery process.

It took the United Kingdom government two years before they could disburse funds. The Minister has just announced this week that six months after the inception of the Lotto, we will be in a position to disburse funds to charities on an interim basis. This is a remarkable achievement. It took the United Kingdom government two years to disburse the funds, but it took us only six months.

The lottery process is not the only means for charities to raise funds. It should not be seen as a substitute for fundraising activities by charities. One can quite rightly ask what these charities that are now reported to be in such dire straits would have done if there were no Lotto.

The timing of this debate is also very significant. The local government elections must at least explain some of the new-found love the New NP and its partners have for charities. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I will not allow interjections that keep disrupting the business of this House. Interjections are allowed, but please make them in an orderly manner. We have the business of the House to continue with and finish in time. Proceed, hon member.

Mr D LOCKEY: The ANC as an organisation has an impeccable record when it comes to supporting charities. Apart from the fact that this Government has committed more than 60% of the national budget to social services, former President Mandela has committed a large portion of his time during retirement to raising funds for various causes. Former President Mandela has already raised funds for 35 schools in disadvantaged communities. [Applause.] The Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund is one of the most successful charities that this country has ever seen. President Mbeki has the Crossroads Education Fund, which contributes bursaries to assist needy children to pursue tertiary education, particularly in the areas of science and technology. The key question to ask the Democratic Alliance, and the New NP in particular, is: Which of their former Presidents or Cabinet Ministers have been involved, in the past or the present, in charitable causes? The only person I know who ever ventured into the business of charity in the past was the hon Abe Williams, and we all know what happened with the funds he raised. [Interjections.] We all know that in his case it was a case of ``Tata Mawilliams’’.

As far as I know, the New NP has only contributed to the misery and poverty of our people. Given their history, what moral ground do they stand on when they criticise this Government? The New NP, while in government, never wanted a lottery because it militated against their so-called religious principles. Yet it allowed the Defence Bonus Bonds, a system that allowed them to fund an illegitimate war against the people of this country - people who were fighting for a just system of fundamental human rights for everyone.

Today the former oppressor is portraying itself as the champion of democracy and freedom. Today the same party whose policies created gutter education, undevelopment and pervasive poverty, is offering itself as the only hope for the poor. None of these stunts will work. [Applause.]

The electorate already gave notice during last year’s election that the demise of the NP was imminent. The Democratic Alliance is doomed because it carries the baggage of the NP. No amount of posturing, of so-called help to the poor, will save them from this absolute demise. [Applause.]

Mr G E BALOI: Mr Chairman, it has taken a long time for the payouts to be made to the needy institutions. However, we accept what the Minister of Trade and Industry had to say - that the funds were not enough to cater for the needy.

It is understandable that the plight of charities will elicit strong views. However, it is unfortunate that, by publicising inaccurate information, uncertainty and anxiety have been caused amongst these important institutions.

The process of finalising the distribution is now virtually complete, and Cabinet will consider it in its next cycle. We all hope for the best.

It is imperative that the lottery funds are handled in a manner that meets the highest standards of accountability. No compromise on this must be entertained. The people of South Africa are waiting to see their contributions being put where their mouths are - at the right time, the right shares and to the right institutions.

God bless the people of South Africa. The UCDP accepts it.

Mrs P DE LILLE: Chairperson and hon Deputy President, first let me say how much I welcome the Minister’s announcement that a start is to be made next month in making payments to deserving organisations engaged in poverty relief from the accumulated Lotto funds. May I say to the hon the Minister: Better late than never.

I assume that the Minister is aware that the Government’s own chosen instrument for support for NGOs - the National Development Agency - has only recently got its act together to begin its work. The NDA faces a massive backlog of applications from the old Transitional National Development Trust, not to mention the applications that will stream in. This is a pitiful underfunding, in any case.

I assume also that the Minister knows that international donors now realise the horrible mistake they made after the 1994 elections in switching the main focus of their efforts from civil society to government aid. They have now realised that our civil society organisations can spend money to better effect on our poorer compatriots than our grossly misnamed Department of Social Welfare.

Why does the Government not come to the same insight? Why does it not fast- track the distribution of the large amounts of money in the state coffers, in the Umsobomvu Fund and in the Department of Welfare to our experienced funding agencies in civil society, even if it is just an interim measure? Finally, I also wonder how the Minister feels about being the head of a department that has taken so long to agree to disburse funds that were heralded as a major contribution to the impoverished citizens?

In conclusion, as a trustee of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, I want to say that the statement made by the hon Van Schalkwyk is incorrect. The Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund will not benefit from the lottery. [Interjections.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the establishment of the national lottery gives every single South African citizen the opportunity to work in partnership with the Government to develop the poorest of the poor and the disadvantaged. Therefore, unnecessary delays in allocating the profits from the national lottery to targeted charitable organisations kills our citzens’ enthusiasm to appreciate our new-found democracy and integrated efforts in capacity-building.

The National Lottery is a huge and prominent strategy to redress the uneven economic hubs that exist in South Africa which, of course, were inherited from the apartheid regime. Therefore, based on the principle of transparency and accountability, the role-players of the National Lottery are legitimately duty-bound to disburse the funds through distributing agencies as soon as possible.

The lottery system is very complex, and it requires strict administrative processes in distributing the funds. That should have received priority in the first place to avoid delays in human development. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, die AEB het hom om morele redes duidelik uitgespreek teen die lotery en ook daarteen gestem. Eintlik wil ons nie betrokke raak by ‘n proses wat iets wat verkeerd is, wil probeer stroomlyn nie. Die versoeking is eintlik groot vandag om my te verlekker en te sê, ek het julle mos gesê, maar nou is die effek van wat gebeur op die oomblik so negatief dat ons ook hier ons stem moet laat hoor.

Die Lotto het so ‘n gees van verslawing by ons mense meegebring. Hoe tragies is dit nie om te sien hoe mense Saterdae toue en toue staan om ‘n kans te waag, en dit terwyl daar rugby op TV is! Hulle is verslaaf aan die geluksgodin.

In verband met die uitdeel van die geld, wil ek die volgende sê. Watter sein stuur dit uit as daar al talle en talle kitsmiljoenêrs in Suid-Afrika uit hierdie skema gebore is, maar die armes en behoeftiges het nog steeds niks gekry nie? Die liefdadigheidsinstellings is nou slegter af as voorheen deurdat eie projekte nou benadeel is. Ander sprekers het dit duidelik uitgewys, en dan blyk dit boonop dat ‘n minimum van 70 sent uit ‘n rand nie die ware bestemming gaan bereik van behoeftiges vir wie dit bedoel is nie.

Die morele besware teen hierdie stelsel is afgemaak met die argument dat die doel die middele heilig. Hierdie doel word nie eens bereik nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, the AEB clearly expressed its opposition to the lottery for moral reasons and also voted against it. Actually, we would not like to become involved in a process which seeks to streamline something which is wrong. In fact, the temptation is great for me to take delight in saying, I told you so, but the effect of what is happening is so negative at the moment that we also have to make ourselves heard here.

The Lotto has brought about such a spirit of enslavement among our people. How tragic it is to see people standing in long queues on Saturdays to take a chance, and that while there is rugby on TV! They are addicted to lady luck.

With regard to the distribution of the money, I would like to say the following. What signal does it send out when numerous instant millionaires have already been made in South Africa as a result of this scheme, but the poor and the needy have still not received anything? The charity organisations are now worse off than before due to the fact that their own projects are now being disadvantaged. Other speakers have clearly pointed this out, and then it also appears that a minimum amount of 70 cents in the rand will not reach the true destination of the needy for whom it was intended.

The moral objections to this system were brushed aside with the argument that the end justifies the means. This end is not even being achieved.]

The hon Landers called the lottery a national asset. I agree with him, but I spell that A-C-I-D. It is a burning acid, eating into the pockets of our people, eating into the morals of our community, without achieving the end which was supposed to justify the means. [Interjections.]

Die AEB doen ‘n beroep op alle verantwoordelike burgers van Suid-Afrika om barmhartigheid te bewys vanuit ‘n hart wat uitgaan na die behoeftiges soos die Skrif dit vra, sonder die verslawende bymotief om ‘n kitsmiljoenêr te word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The AEB appeals to all responsible citizens of South Africa to show compassion from a heart which goes out to the needy as the Scriptures ask, without the addictive additional motive of becoming an instant millionaire.]

Dr R H DAVIES: Chairperson, one of the risks that people run when they cobble together in an alliance which is based on nothing more than opportunism, is that they can never be sure that the messages will not get so hopelessly mixed up that they become unintelligible. [Interjections.] That, I would argue, is exactly what we have seen this afternoon.

We heard Mr Van Schalkwyk, in his introduction of this motion, criticising what he appears to see as inefficiencies in the administration of the lottery. Mr Bruce, on the other hand, has expressed scepticism about the concept of the lottery itself. Today he spoke about the state awarding itself what he called a lottery monopoly, and he complained on a completely uninformed basis about what he said were small charities being precluded from raising their own funds.

Mr Bruce has often spoken on this topic. In fact, he speaks more on it than he does on industrial policy or SMMEs, and some of us wonder whether he really is the spokesperson on trade and industry. What he has put forward in his various interventions is a laissez-faire approach in which he clearly has a preference for small institutions doing their own fundraising and for there not being a National Lottery.

The point that Mr Bruce appears to have ignored in all of this, is that the National Lottery offers us an opportunity to raise considerably more funds for good causes than the alternative. [Interjections.] The National Lotteries Board has projected that over the course of the seven-year contract period of Uthingo, something like R13,3 billion would be raised by the lottery.

Let me just correct Mr Van Schalkwyk: The Minister told the portfolio committee a week or so ago that currently R179 million has been put in the trust fund. That is considerably more money than would be raised by small charities which are, by the way, not actually prevented from engaging in their own fundraising operations. What is happening is that they are regulated.

The fact is that if we move in the direction of a national lottery we run a couple of risks. The first one, which no one has mentioned today, is that of problem gambling. The fact is that we can encourage more and more people to spend money on gambling at the expense of basic needs. The ANC has raised this matter in discussions with the National Lotteries Board. It seems as though this was something which they bore in mind when setting the ticket price. The department is also engaged in working on problem gambling in order to ensure that it does not become an abuse of the kind that Mr Aucamp and the ACDP appear to think it will be. [Interjections.]

The second risk is that one is dealing with large sums of money, and one can potentially compromise the integrity of the lottery by not following proper procedures and by acting imprudently. I think it is a great misrepresentation in the debate this afternoon to suggest that those of us on this side of the House do not want to see the lottery funds distributed as quickly as possible. I would argue that we do, as much if not more than people on that side of the House. [Interjections.] The point is that we realise that this needs to be done on a sustainable basis that does not compromise the integrity of the lottery. That is what we want to see.

The Minister has said that he will not compromise prudent management of the lottery funds. He will draw on the best international experience and will make sure that we have a sustainable lottery system. I think we should support him in that, and we should support his not being pressurised by political opportunism into abandoning sound management of the lottery system. [Interjections.]

Mr Van Schalkwyk accused the Minister of political opportunism in the timing of the announcement that there will be interim payments to certain charities. I want to ask Mr Van Schalkwyk a couple of questions. Is he seriously suggesting that what the Minister should do is to delay those interim payments until after the local government elections? Is that what he is suggesting? [Interjections.]

What about the timing of the debate this afternoon? Does Mr Van Schalkwyk really want us to believe that the Demogogic Alliance tabled this debate this afternoon while being completely indifferent to the fact that we are in the run-up to the local government elections? Anybody who believes that will believe anything, including that the DA is a viable political organisation. But I have news for them. The fact of the matter is that the people of this country have not lost confidence in the National Lottery. There was a record turnout last week and there will be an even bigger turnout this week. We need to realise that this lottery is an asset and it needs to be managed effectively.

Having said that, I just want to say to the Minister that he has our support, from this side of the House, in not being pressurised into acting in a way which is imprudent. But I want to ask the Minister if he could, today or at some stage in the future, offer us in Parliament and the public at large some kind of clear, broad guideline on the steps that will be followed and, if possible, some indication of the kind of timeframes. I think that would help in terms of creating greater certainty around this matter and avoiding some of the mindless manoeuvres which we have been subjected to this afternoon. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Chairperson, I am very pleased to get this chance this afternoon to set the record straight. It is with some regret that I have listened to a whole range of misrepresentations and distortions, and these cannot do service to the many people that we believe and know the lottery will benefit. I can understand that we all try to do a bit of political point-scoring, but we should not distort facts on a matter such as this. Let me also welcome to the House Mr Joe Foster, Prof Ram and Mr Khoza, the chairperson of the National Lotteries Board, the chief executive of the board and the chief executive of Uthingo. [Applause.] Those of us who fought for good causes in this country and those of us who fought for the wellbeing of our people, know these three persons and respect them as people of great integrity and commitment to this country. [Interjections.] [Applause.] I therefore have no problem with someone like the hon member Bruce abusing me. I am used to it. But I find it immensely distasteful that the undeserved protection of this House is used to discredit people of great honour.

Let me now address what is going to happen and what has happened. I will not attempt to respond to the numerous inaccuracies and distortions. In June this year, when I made my first statement in this House after the launch of the National Lottery, I stated unequivocally and very clearly that we would separate the setting up of the National Lottery from the setting up of the distribution agency. If hon members were to go back and check the Hansard, they would see that I said that I exercised my judgment, which I believed to be profoundly correct, based on the experience and advice received from other areas. I realised that this could cause certain difficulties and I stated very clearly and precisely that, if it was the case that, as a result of the termination of lotteries such as Ithuba and Viva, there were real cases of hardship in certain agencies, I would take steps to see if I could expedite support for those particular cases. I have done that.

Cabinet has approved the process within a very short time. Depending on whether the printers get it out this week or next week, we will gazette the regulations for that. Applications will have to be made in the standard format, following the standard mechanisms for credential requirements. How long that will take, I cannot say. It will depend on how easily we can co- operate with those who make the applications. Obviously we will try to expedite that but, as I have said time and time again, I will not be forced into short cuts that might go wrong.

Why this talk of delay, delay, delay? I have made statements on many occasions. If those organisations waiting to receive funds from the National Lottery and any sensible observer of this process were to read my statements, if they were to read Hansard, they would not be confused. The confusion comes from the politicking of two parties.

I have stated quite clearly that the National Lottery is governed by a licence. In that licence the conditions are set out and certain projections are made regarding funding, roll-out, different games coming in, etc. This is a massive enterprise. I have stated very clearly that we need to be very confident that everything will go well. I am pleased to say that it has not only gone well, it has gone very well. We are managing a lottery on a very high standard and it is doing very well.

This notion that there is R300 million available is just ignorance about the licence conditions. That is a public document. The researchers of the different parties that had all sorts of other facts wrong could have gotten this right. What happens is that the funds that go into the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund are based on a formula. This is common practice. The formula escalates from a low figure, which is currently 13%, to a high figure of 40%, based on the income received from the National Lottery. Therefore there cannot currently be R300 million in the National Lottery. Hon members have to apply 13% to the turn-over figures and not 30%. The latest figure that I have received from the chief executive is R190 million.

It is important that we understand that this can make a significant contribution to charities. Our records show that Ithuba and Viva combined, at their height, paid out about R25 million. That was somewhere between 6% and 16% of the total revenue of those organisations. Already, with this R190 million, we are in a position to make a significant and lasting contribution to welfare, charities and other structures, as envisaged in the Act. If we are going to do that, it is really a pointless and stupid exercise, as I have said in this House during my last statement on this matter, to start paying out large amounts before one is absolutely certain that one has a cushion that allows one to pay out more than one receives in many months.

That makes sense. As I said in this House before: Why start paying out a few good causes here and there? Why not start with a reasonable system? I also stated it in a statement to the press in which, if hon members had read it carefully, they would have seen what I said. I said that there is a difference between commencing the distribution payments and the final fully articulated system of distribution. It will take time.I think the figure for March given by one of my junior officials is a reasonable estimate for when the full system will be in place, not when we would make certain disbursements.

If one reads the Act - I would really urge the institutions that will be making an application to read the Act, and I am sure all the sensible ones have done that - one will see that the Act is very, very clear. In fact, I think it is almost exemplary in terms of grant-making. It sets out, firstly, which principles should govern the distribution system, and these principles are very clear. The lottery cannot be the sole source of income for any one cause. It is not designed to replace all revenue-raising for good causes. It is very clear, too, the lottery must make distributions across the country. It cannot just focus on certain areas. It is very clear about a range of matters. These matters will be set out in the regulations that I am obliged in terms of the Act to publish.

Those regulations will set out the distribution agencies, the categories and the percentages by category, the requirements for applications, the format of the application form, the selection, appointment and administrative procedures of the distribution agencies and so forth. These would be set out. They exist, they are elaborate and they are clear. There will be no confusion or lack of clarity for any applying agency. We have prepared detailed packs to support and assist the agencies in making application, explaining the Act to them, explaining how they should draw up their business plans, etc. We very deliberately went about that. We are going to make the distribution system of the lottery exemplary.

We took advice from many quarters, we took advice from other lotteries, we took advice from the World Bank and many others. This has not been a delay. If we had done it faster, I think we would have been imprudent. The advice I still get from experts is that we are going to distribute too early. That is the advice that I still get. I have elected to say, all right, we will have to take a bit of a chance, and we will make the payments a bit earlier. I am particularly concerned, as I indicated before, that if there are clear and deserving cases of people who did get money from lotteries we stopped, we will treat them first. But they will have to comply with all the requirements of the Act, all the requirements of our formats, etc. I would like to tell colleagues in this House that this lottery can be made to do many things for many people, such as the disabled, sportspersons and every one. But we are going to run this lottery, as a lottery, in an exemplary fashion, and we are going to run the distribution system in an exemplary fashion. I will not be bulldozed or cajoled or heckled into doing something which I know is wrong. I trust my judgment. I trust the judgment of the board. Our judgment has been good in the past and it is going to be good again. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The House adjourned at 18:44. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                      FRIDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2000

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    On 22 September 2000 the following Bill, at the request of the
     Minister of Health, was introduced in the National Council of
     Provinces by the Select Committee on Social Services. It has been
     referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification
     in terms of Joint Rule 160:


     (i)     Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service
          Professions Second Amendment Bill [B 66 - 2000] (National
          Council of Provinces - sec 76) - (Select Committee on Social
          Services - National Council of Provinces) [Explanatory
          summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction
          published in Government Gazette No 21483 of 25 August 2000.]

National Assembly:

The Speaker:

1. The following members have been appointed to serve on the Committee mentioned, viz: Ad hoc Committee on General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill:

 ANC

 Benjamin, J (Alt); Bloem, D V; Cwele, S C; Ebrahim, E I; Gigaba, K M N
 (Alt); George, M E (Alt); Goniwe, T M; Kota, Z A; Landers, L T;
 Lekgoro, M K (Alt); Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Mashimbye, J N; Modise, T R;
 Ngculu, L V; Scott, M I; Van der Merwe, S C.

 DP

 Pillay, R; Schalkwyk, P.

 IFP

 Ndlovu, V B.


 New NP

 Olckers, M E.

 UDM
 Abram, S.

 ACDP

 Green, L M.

 FF

 Mulder, C P.

 AZAPO

 Mangena, M.

                     TUESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2000

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Labour:

 Report and Financial Statements of the South African Broadcasting
 Corporation for 1999-2000.

1. The Minister of Health:

 (a)    Government Notice No R.650 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21313 dated 30 June 2000, Amendment of Regulations made in
     terms of the Medical Schemes Act, 1998.

 (b)    Government Notice No R.755 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21399 dated 28 July 2000, Amendment of Regulations relating to
     milk and diary products made in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics
     and Disinfectants Act, 1972.

 (c)    Government Notice No R.837 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21486 dated 25 August 2000, Amendment of Regulations relating
     to milk and diary products made in terms of the Foodstuffs,
     Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972.

 (d)    Government Notice No 757 published in the Government Gazette No
     21409 dated 28 July 2000, Notice of ratification of Protocol on
     Health in Southern African Development Community (SADC).

 (e)    Government Notice No R.836 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21486 dated 25 August 2000, Amendment of regulations regarding
     maximum limits for pesticide residues made in terms of the
     Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972.

 (f)    Government Notice No 838 published in the Government Gazette No
     21483 dated 25 August 2000, Explanatory summary on Chiropractors,
     Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Amendment Bill,
     2000 published for comment.

 (g)    Government Notice No R.872 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21533 dated 8 September 2000, Regulations regarding the use of
     names which may not be used made in terms of the Medical, Dental
     and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, 1974.

 (h)    Government Notice No R.872 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21533 dated 8 September 2000, Regulations on flouridating water
     supplies made in terms of the Health Laws Amendment Act, 1977.

 (i)    Government Notice No R.921 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21552 dated 15 September 2000, Regulations regarding fees to be
     paid to the South African Nursing Council made in terms of the
     Nursing Act, 1978.

 (j)    Government Notice No R.925 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21552 dated 15 September 2000, Regulations defining scope of
     profession of emergency care made in terms of the Medical, Dental
     and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act, 1974.

 (k)    Government Notice No R.943 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21569 dated 22 September 2000, Regulations made in terms of the
     Medical Schemes Act, 1998.

 (l)    Government Notice No 942 published in the Government Gazette No
     21569 dated 22 September 2000, Explanatory summary of the Mental
     Health Care Bill, 2001 published for comment.

 (m)    Government Notice No 876 published in the Government Gazette No
     21535 dated 4 September 2000, Publication of the Chiropractors,
     Homeopaths and Allied Health Service professions Amendment Act,
     2000 (Act No 6 of 2000).

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Limitation of Legal Proceedings against Government Institutions Bill [B 65 - 99] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 20 September 2000:

 The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
 having considered the subject of the Limitation of Legal Proceedings
 against Government Institutions Bill [B 65 - 99] (National Assembly -
 sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism
 as a section 75 Bill, presents the Institution of Legal Proceedings
 against Organs of State Bill [B 65B - 99] (National Assembly -sec 75),
 and endorses the classification of the Bill as a section 75 Bill.

 The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:


 1.     During its deliberations on the Bill, the Committee's attention
     was drawn to the fact that certain provisions of existing laws
     provide for different -


     (1)     notice periods; and


     (2)     prescription periods,


     for the institution of legal proceedings in respect of certain
     debts arising from delictual or contractual liability.

     The Committee expressed the view that some of those provisions
     could possibly be unconstitutional, particularly in the light of -


     (a)     the reasoning in Mohlomi v Minister of Defence 1997 (1) SA
          124 (CC), where the Constitutional Court declared the
          provisions of section 113(1) of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No.
          44 of 1957), which provided for limitations of actions against
          the Defence Force, to be constitutionally invalid; and


     (b)     the South African Law Commission's supplementary report on
          the investigation into time limits for the institution of
          legal proceedings against the State (Project 42).


     In order to create uniformity, the Committee deemed it appropriate
     to repeal existing provisions providing for different notice
     periods, whether they are possibly unconstitutional or not, and to
     substitute them with a uniform notice period which will apply in
     respect of the institution of all legal proceedings against
     certain organs of state, as defined in the Bill, arising out of
     certain debts. The Committee, however, further deemed it
     appropriate to retain certain existing provisions which, for
     specific reasons, provide for notice periods that differ from the
     uniform period envisaged by the Bill.  It is important to note
     that the Bill empowers a court, upon application by a creditor and
     if certain requirements are met, to condone such creditor's
     failure to comply with the notice requirements provided for in the
     Bill.

     By defining debt as "any debt arising from any unlawful act or
     omission for which an organ of state is liable for payment of
     damages, including any delict or liability without fault in terms
     of a statutory provision, but does not include a debt arising from
     a breach of contract", the provisions providing for a notice
     period will not apply in respect of debts arising from contractual
     liability.

     In order to create further uniformity, the Committee deemed it
     appropriate to repeal certain existing provisions, whether they
     are possibly unconstitutional or not, which provide for specific
     notice or prescription periods in respect of certain debts arising
     from delictual or contract liability. The Committee, however,
     further deemed it appropriate to retain certain existing
     provisions which, for specific reasons, provide for prescription
     periods that differ from the period provided for in Chapter III of
     the Prescription Act, 1969 (Act No. 68 of 1969). The effect of the
     repeal of the above-mentioned provisions is that the prescription
     of all debts arising from delictual or contractual liability will,
     after the commencement of this Bill and unless otherwise provided
     for by an existing provision, be regulated by Chapter III of the
     Prescription Act, 1969.

     Due to the fact that no comprehensive review of all the provisions
     providing for different prescription periods, whether of a
     delictual or contractual nature, has been done, the Committee was
     not in a position to deal with the harmonisation of such different
     prescription periods on the strength of comprehensive research.
     Furthermore, because the main object of the Bill is to harmonise,
     and create uniformity in respect of, the provisions of existing
     laws providing for different notice periods, the Committee is of
     the view that the Bill is not the appropriate mechanism to deal
     with the harmonisation of provisions providing for different
     prescription periods.

     Clause 2 of the Bill, however, provides for a limited
     harmonisation of such laws and also contains specific transitional
     arrangements to ensure a smooth transition.

     The Committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Justice
     and Constitutional Development be requested to request the
     Chairperson of the South African Law Commission to include an
     investigation into the harmonisation of the provisions of existing
     laws providing for different prescription periods in the Law
     Commission's programme.


 2.     The Bill, as introduced into Parliament, provided for the repeal
     of section 44 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
     Diseases Act, 1993 (Act No. 130 of 1993), which provides, inter
     alia, that "a right to benefits in terms of this Act shall lapse
     if the accident in question is not brought to the attention of the
     commissioner or of the employer or mutual association concerned,
     as the case may be, within 12 months after the date of such
     accident". Although the Committee considered the repeal or
     amendment of the said section 44, it expressed the view that it
     had insufficient information available to it to consider the
     repeal or amendment of that section properly and any possible
     consequential amendments to the said Act which might emanate from
     such repeal or amendment. In the light thereof, the Committee
     recommends that the Department of Labour be requested -


     (1)     to investigate the repeal or amendment of section 44 with
          a view to bringing the provisions thereof into line with the
          provisions of the Bill and, if necessary, the Constitution,
          and to identifying possible consequential amendments to the
          above-mentioned Act emanating from such repeal or amendment;
          and


     (2)     where necessary, to submit legislative proposals regarding
          the matter in question to Parliament for its consideration.
 3.     The Committee's attention was also drawn to section 23 of the
     Road Accident Fund Act, 1996 (Act No. 56 of 1996), which provides
     for the prescription of the right to claim compensation from,
     among others, the Road Accident Fund, established under section
     2(1) of that Act, in respect of "loss or damage arising from the
     driving of a motor vehicle in the case where the identity of
     either the driver or the owner thereof has been established". The
     Committee considered the possibility of repealing the said section
     23 and including the Road Accident Fund in the definition of
     "organ of state" so as to make the provisions of the Bill
     applicable to that Fund. The Committee is aware of the Road
     Accident Fund Commission, which has been established to "inquire
     into and to make recommendations regarding a reasonable,
     equitable, affordable and sustainable system for the payment by
     the Road Accident Fund of compensation or benefits, or a
     combination of compensation and benefits, in the event of the
     injury or death of persons in road accidents in the Republic". It
     has been brought to the Committee's attention that the Road
     Accident Fund Commission is required to submit its Report to the
     President during the course of 2001. In the light of the above,
     the Committee decided against the repeal of section 23 and the
     inclusion of the Road Accident Fund in the definition of "organ of
     state". The Committee recommends that the Department of Transport
     be requested -


     (1)     to consider and evaluate any recommendations regarding the
          matter in question as contained in the Report by the Road
          Accident Fund Commission;


     (2)     in any case, to investigate the repeal or amendment of
          section 23 with the view to bringing the provisions thereof
          into line with the provisions of the Bill and, if necessary,
          the Constitution, and to identifying possible consequential
          amendments to the above-mentioned Act emanating from such
          repeal or amendment; and


     (3)     where necessary, to submit legislative proposals regarding
          the matter in question to Parliament for its consideration.
 4.     The Committee's attention was also drawn to the fact that the
     Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 1989
     (Act No. 9 of 1989), contains certain provisions providing for
     specific notice periods in respect of claims for compensation for
     livestock killed or injured by a train or for property destroyed
     or damaged by a fire caused by a burning object coming from a
     locomotive or train. Due to a lack of information, the Committee
     was not in a position to consider the repeal or amendment of those
     provisions properly for purposes of uniformity. The Committee
     therefore recommends that the Department of Transport be requested
     -


     (1)     to investigate the repeal or amendment of the above-
          mentioned provisions with a view to bringing them into line
          with the provisions of the Bill and, if necessary, the
          Constitution, and to identifying possible consequential
          amendments to the above-mentioned Act emanating from such
          repeal or amendment; and


     (2)     where necessary, to submit legislative proposals regarding
          the matter in question to Parliament for its consideration.


 5.     The Committee's attention was drawn to section 59 of The South
     African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 1998
     (Act No. 7 of 1998), which provides for notice periods for the
     institution of legal proceedings against, among others, The South
     African National Roads Agency Limited (the Agency) or an employee
     of the Agency for any damage or loss allegedly suffered by a
     person as a result of any act with regard to a national road which
     allegedly was performed or omitted by, among others, the Chief
     Executive Officer or any of the other employees of the Agency
     acting in the performance of their duties.  Although the Bill, as
     introduced into Parliament, provided for the amendment of section
     25 of the National Roads Act, 1971 (Act No. 54 of 1971), it did
     not provide for the amendment or repeal of the said section 59. It
     was brought to the Committee's attention that the whole of the
     National Roads Act, 1971, except section 2(1A) thereof, has been
     repealed by The South African National Roads Agency Limited and
     National Roads Act, 1998. In the light thereof, the Committee
     deemed it appropriate to include an amendment to section 59 of The
     South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads
     Act, 1998, in the Bill so as to make the uniform notice period
     envisaged by the Bill applicable to legal proceedings emanating
     from the provisions of that Act as well. The Committee also noted
     that section 59(3) provides that "[n]either the Agency nor ... any
     person who operates or has constructed a national road, will be
     liable for any damage or loss suffered by any person through the
     use of any part of the national road other than the roadway or as
     a result of the closure or deviation of a national road under this
     Act". Although, as a result of the repeal of section 59(1) and (2)
     of the latter Act, the Committee effected consequential amendments
     to section 59(3), it does not express any views on the
     constitutionality of that section.


 6.     The Committee expresses its concern that it had to amend the
     Black Administration Act, 1927 (Act No. 38 of 1927), once again,
     on a piecemeal basis. The Committee is aware that the said Act was
     one of the cornerstones of the previous dispensation and reflects
     many of the injustices of the past. The Committee also expresses
     the view that it is unacceptable that six years after the new
     constitutional dispensation came into being, the above-mentioned
     Act has still not been reviewed in its entirety with a view to
     bringing it into line with the Constitution. In this regard, it
     was further brought to the Committee's attention that on 5
     September 2000 the High Court of Pretoria, in the case of D E
     Moseneke and Others v The Master of the High Court (Case No.
     20006/2000), declared the provisions of clause 3(1) of the
     Regulations promulgated in terms of the above-mentioned Act to be
     invalid, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. In the light
     of the above, the Committee recommends that each Member of the
     Executive who is responsible for a Department that administers
     specific sections of the above-mentioned Act, and especially those
     Members who are responsible for the Departments of Home Affairs,
     Justice and Constitutional Development and Land Affairs, be
     requested to review the sections which their respective
     Departments administer, with a view to bringing those sections
     into line with the Constitution. As it appears that the above-
     mentioned Act is administered by various different government
     structures, which may explain why no Department is taking
     responsibility for the review of the whole Act, the Committee
     recommends that this matter also be brought to the attention of
     the President. The Committee urges the Minister for Justice and
     Constitutional Development to consider referring the review of the
     whole of the above-mentioned Act to the South African Law
     Commission as a project of the highest priority.


 7.     The Committee requests that the Department of Justice and
     Constitutional Development and all the other Departments to which
     specific tasks have been assigned in terms of this Report, must
     each submit a report to the Committee on progress regarding the
     task or tasks assigned to them, with the Department of Justice and
     Constitutional Development co-ordinating the submission of such
     reports, within six months after the adoption of this Report.


 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Council for the Built Environment Bill [B 16 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Council for the Built Environment Bill [B 16 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 16A - 2000].

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Architectural Profession Bill [B 17 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Architectural Profession Bill [B 17 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 17A - 2000].

3. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Landscape Architectural Profession Bill [B 18 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Landscape Architectural Profession Bill [B 18 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 18A - 2000].

4. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Engineering Profession Bill [B 19 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Engineering Profession Bill [B 19 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 19A - 2000].

5. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Property Valuers Profession Bill [B 20 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Property Valuers Profession Bill [B 20 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 20A - 2000].

6. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Project and Construction Management Professions Bill [B 21 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Project and Construction Management Professions Bill [B 21 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 21A - 2000].

7. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Quantity Surveying Profession Bill [B 22 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Public Works, having considered the subject of the Quantity Surveying Profession Bill [B 22 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 22A - 2000].

8. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Abuja Treaty, dated 20 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Treaty establishing the African Economic Community (Abuja Treaty), referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty.

 Report to be considered.

                    WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2000

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

 1.     The Minister of Finance:


     Government Notice No R.896 published in the Government Gazette No
     21545 dated 8 September 2000, Amendment of Prescribed Fees made in
     terms of section 36 of the Pension Funds Act, 1956 (Act No 24 of
     1956).


 2.     The Minister of Trade and Industry:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Support Programme for
     Industrial Innovation for 1999-2000.

National Assembly:

Bills: 1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

     (1)     Wetsontwerp op die Direktoraat vir Spesiale Operasies [W
          39 - 2000].


          The Directorate of Special Operations Bill [B 39 - 2000]
          (National Assembly - sec 75) was introduced by the Minister
          for Justice and Constitutional Development on 11 August 2000
          and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
          Constitutional Development.