1. The dti consulted with provinces for about 2 years to address potential conflicts. I would therefore submit that there are no substantial conflicts remaining. The author sets out only one conflict regarding regulations around Limited Payout Machines. As the regulations that are referred to are already in place, it comes as a surprise that there would be a conflict. As the author does not elaborate on the detail of the conflict, it is not possible to give a more detailed response.

2. During the consultation process with provinces, the compromise struck by the dti and the National Gambling Board with provinces was that the NGB would not have licensing functions and that provinces would issue national licenses. The NGB thus has an oversight function, primarily to ensure that national licenses are issued consistently across all provinces. Furthermore, the powers of the NGB are largely subject to the National Gambling Policy Council.

3. The Bill does not set out exclusive functions for PLAs, rather it sets out minimum functions that can reasonably be expected from provinces to fulfill. The aim of the Bill is not ensure proper control over the gambling industry. Furthermore, specific reference is made to the jurisdiction of a province, which is determined by provincial law. In that context, the comment does not make sense.

4. The Bill provides for conflicts of any sort to be addressed by the National Gambling Policy Council.

1. The intention has always been to have one national register. This has been communicated to the provinces, to the Portfolio Committee and to the Select Committee during briefings. The underlying concept is that gambling devices Should be tracked throughout their lifetime and that all movements of machines should be tracked, even across provincial boundaries. Provinces are not in a position to do the latter. Furthermore, provinces currently require manufacturers to track machines and hold them liable for any illegal use, which cannot be reasonable. It is believed that this provision is perfectly constitutional.

2. Exclusions of gambling devices from registration are to be completed b~ way of regulations. The Bill provides that all regulations that have an impact on provinces must be discussed at and approved at the National Gambling Policy Council. Thus, provinces will have input into the formulation of regulations. The primary rationale for making exclusions national is that it is important that this is applied consistently - one cannot have a national register and inconsistent provincial exclusions.

3. The comment is of a general nature and does not require a response.

I. Provisions requiring regulations can only come into effect when regulations are published.

2. The sections referred to were specifically left to regulation, so that all possible cases can be addressed coherently.

3. The dti has repeatedly responded to the issue of an informal bet and believes that this matter has been adequately addressed.

4. It is not clear to the dti that the conflict that is alluded to exists.

5. The Bill envisages the establishment of a register that will be maintained as long as the Act is in effect. It therefore implies that existing devices will have to be registered on the national register. Thus, transitional provisions in this regard would not be of any value.

6. How long does it take to move an ATM? Why is there a need for transitional provisions in respect of such an issue?

7. Section 66(2) explicitly provides for cross-border investigations

8. Regulations are discussed at the National Gambling Policy Council. While PLAs have a presence on the council, it is not there role to make policy, but rather to implement it. The dti will be consulting with its provincial counterparts in provincial government, not PLAs.

9. It is not clear what the difficulties envisaged are, as it is the choice of the employee whether they apply for a national or a provincial license. Provinces issue both. Furthermore, all information on licenses will be available to all provinces.

10. The National Treasury carefully reviewed the Bill in respect of FICA and recommended some amendments, which were effected. The comment does not clarify where the conflict lies, and the dti therefore does not consider this comment substantive.

II. The 5% issue has been addressed in the amendments proposed to the Committee in November.

12. The comment is too general to enable the dti to respond. It appears that reference is made to comments made in the Portfolio Committee or during previous consultations. The dti has responded to those comments.

13. The Bill does not provide for the Minister to determine the length of licenses.

14. The comment does not contain reference to any specific points. A general point is raised that does not require a response. However, it should be noted that in the context of concurrent jurisdiction, both national and provincial laws would apply. The constitution deals only with conflicts between the two.

15. The same conditions for the review of a license apply, whether national or provincial (section 53).

16. The Bill captures the agreement with provinces in respect of Internet gambling.

17. Again, the comment is not clear, making it difficult to respond. The same answer as in 14 above would apply to the more philosophical points.

18. The reasons outlined in the comment are precisely the reason why these matters were left to regulation.