Our ref: 12/1/4
Date: 17 August 2007
Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry
For attention: Ms. Marcelle Williams
Dear Ms. Williams
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NATIONAL GAMBLING AMENDMENT BILL ON 22 AUGUST 2007: WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM MPUMALANGA GAMBLING BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION BY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
We refer to the above matter and wish to apologise for our inability to attend the public hearings on the National Gambling Amendment Bill, scheduled before the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on 22 August 2007, due to the fact that we have to attend our Provincial Government Legotla, which coincides with the date of the public hearings. However, we have been advised that we may submit written comments for consideration by the Committee via email.
In this regard, we are attaching a copy of our letter to the Department of Trade and Industry (“the dti”), dated 12 February 2007, to our email, as “Annexure A”, under cover of which we enclosed our Comments, attached to our email, as “Annexure B”.
Subsequent to a Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, held by the dti on 10 July 2007, regarding the National Gambling Amendment Bill, the said Bill was revised by the dti. However, no material revisions were made and our Comments, as set out in “Annexure B” remains relevant, with the exception of comments on typographical errors, which have been attended to.
We also have the following additional comments:
1. Substitution of section 33 – Responsibilities of the board
With reference to sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b), relating to “accounting systems”, we submit that this should be confined to interactive gambling. Similarly, in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (e), “offences” should be confined to interactive gambling and paragraph (g) should also be confined to interactive gambling. The intention of this section is obviously to provide for the National Gambling Board’s responsibilities with regard to the regulation interactive gambling.
2. Amendment of section 38 and insertion of section 39A
The term “personnel” licence is foreign to the gambling industry and we propose that instead this type of licence is referred to “employee” or “employment” licence, to avoid confusion.
Lastly, we wish to thank the Portfolio Committee for granting us the opportunity to comment and we wish to advise that we will gladly provide further clarification with regard to our comments, should same be required.
We trust that this is received in good order.
Acting Chief Executive Officer