Robyn Louw article that must be read

Houses of Parliament

I started writing for the Sporting Post to write about horses. And racing. I did not take the job to write about politics, legislation and government policy.

Unfortunately, it turns out that without the politics, legislation and government policy, there is no racing and no horses to write about. I find that vexing, if I’m honest, but as it seems out that no-one else is writing about the boring, but necessary stuff, I’m the only one left to do it. So here we go.

On 15 May 2015 the Department of Trade and Industry published its National Gambling Policy in the Government Gazette, Notice 416 of 2015 and the public is invited to provide comment within 45 calendar days of publication (i.e by 22 June 2015). Should you wish to take part in the consultation – which I urge you all to do – you have every right to do so and can furnish any views and comments to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." onclick="_gaq.push();">TShale@thedti.gov.za before the 22 June cut-off date.

Why should I bother?
I was going to give my motivation at the end, but as it’s going to be hard going (forewarned being forearmed and all that), I’m not holding out hope that too many of you are going to make it that far, so I’ll make my case now.

Insofar as horseracing is concerned, the operators and owners of the totalisator (Gold Circle (Pty) Ltd and Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Limited) have made several representations to Parliament. The National Horseracing Authority of South Africa have made representations to Parliament. Furthermore, so has the Racing Association made representations to Parliament. The Grooms have had a representative fighting their cause before Parliament. So have bookmakers.

The only group that hasn’t been included, dear reader, is you.

Whoops!
Yes you. The problem lies in the fact that the Policy has not received any representation from the lifeblood of horseracing, namely the punter. Secondly, the Racing Association does NOT represent all owners, so owners who are not RA members should also be informed and deserve an equal and fair chance to contribute their views.

OK, but why is this my problem?
I was encouraged by the fact that a number of people took the time to read the recently published NHA AGM Minutes and better yet, that a few people commented on the contents. I thought that there was a lot to comment on, and also that members, as a body, should be a little more pushy about demanding answers. But that’s a discussion for another day. The National Gambling Policy is another document which merits serious consideration and I haven’t seen it raised by any other racing stakeholders or bodies to date, which is a little odd as they have been participating in the process. I think it’s important that it is brought to the attention of the industry as a whole. If we don’t take an interest – and a hand – in administration matters, we run the risk of being excluded from the decision making process altogether and these decisions are being made at the highest level and have potentially far-reaching effects.

If you read all this, you are a champion!
So here goes. The National Gambling Policy deals with all forms of gambling in South Africa. My area of interest relates fairly specifically to the horseracing and betting aspect, so I have selected the bits that I found most relevant, however I recommend that the document is read in its entirety.

The policy proposal regarding Horseracing and Betting is that “horseracing be statutorily regulated in that the self-regulation model be formally recognised subject to being monitored by Provincial Licensing Authorities (PLAs), and the minimisation of animal welfare issues. An assessment may be conducted in future to determine if self-regulation should continue with oversight of PLAs, or whether full regulation will be required. At this point a case for full regulation has not been made in the various consultative processes and the industry seems to have its processes in order. However, based on the challenges raised around failure to recognise certain stakeholders, entrenched barriers to entry, proper governance and fair play imperatives, limited oversight by the state is recommended. Although concerns were raised about bookmakers taking open bets, it is proposed that only a provision addressing that intellectual property of other players should be used with necessary consent, and/or compensation relating thereto.”

Challenges
In relation to existing problems in the horseracing industry, the policy document recognises and states that:-

“Horseracing is self-regulated and the Act does not provide criteria how this regime should be managed given emanating challenges. Problems range from labour disputes, transformation of the sector and inclusion of other horse racing activities, e.g. trotting and bush racing. More, the growth and development of this industry from a trade, agricultural and global competitiveness perspectives may require some form of government intervention.”

Proposal “HORSERACING AND BETTING 4.4.1 Horseracing in South Africa
4.4.1.1 Horseracing in South Africa is a self-regulated industry under the auspices of the South African National Horseracing Authority (NHA). The NHA is not a statutory regulator but is responsible for licensing horse trainers, owners and monitor all the race meetings. Phumelela and Gold Circle (Gold Circle operates only in the KZN and Western Cape provinces) own the tracks in the country and conduct the race meetings. The two companies also own a large share of betting on horses through their jointly owned tote betting operator.

4.4.1.2 Another important role player in the horseracing industry is the bookmakers who collect bets from horseracing. Bookmakers also collect bets from other sporting activities like soccer, car racing and others. Bookmakers contributes 3% of their total revenue towards the horse industry in the form of a levy paid to the provincial regulators who will in turn pay it over to the horseracing operators.

4.4.1.3 The Act and provincial gambling legislations only regulate betting on horses and says nothing about the entire industry, which is self-regulated under the NHA. The policy consideration need to determine if the self- regulation model in the horseracing industry should be retained as it is or a totally new model should be adopted.

4.4.1.4 It must be borne in mind that there are concerns raised regarding the transformation of the industry and its willingness to participate in the creation of a fertile environment to accommodate transformation targets. Issues of ownership and entry for new role players in the industry were found wanting in that there seem to be no space for new entrants to enter the industry.

4.4.2 Horseracing Regulatory Structure
4.4.2.1 The industry will be left to continue with the self-regulation that is statutorily entrenched giving policy guidance on how the industry should be managed. The independence of each role player must be properly outlined to ensure that all stakeholders participate equitably. It will be important that the regulatory structure maintain a high level of independence from the ownership and control of the entire industry.

4.4.2.2 Board members must maintain independence from the ownership and control while ensuring that all participants are treated fairly in all levels of command.

4.4.2.3 The self-regulation approach is a reasonable approach considering that horseracing has been under self-regulation process since its inception over a century ago. Further the administrative and financial burden to the provincial regulatory authorities will be minimised.

4.4.2.4 Self-regulating body will be accountable to the respective provincial regulatory authority in all their administrative and financial performance. The Self-Regulating body will ensure that there are more accessible mechanisms in place whereby complaints and concerns may be reported and investigated to ensure success.

4.4.2.5 The regulatory authorities will jointly develop criteria whereby the self-regulating body can be evaluated. How the self-regulating body meets the above criteria is to be determined in the said criteria. These requirements should appear in the internal controls of the self-regulating body. PLAs will develop criteria for the efficient operation of the self-regulating body. The coordination of developing the criteria should be vested on the NGB and the criteria must eventually be approved by Council to ensure harmony.

4.4.2.6 In the event the self-regulating body fails to comply with the systems and procedures the Executive Authority may upon report and investigation empower the provincial regulatory authority to take over the interim administration of the self-regulatory body until the Executive Authority is satisfied that the self-regulating body will effectively comply.

4.4.2.7 The standards will enable all forms of horse sporting activities and the betting thereon.

Recommendation That horseracing continues to be regulated under a statutorily recognized self regulating body, which will be monitored by the relevant PLA. The PLAs will develop the criteria for self-regulator to function under the coordination of the NGB and Council must approve the criteria.
4.4.3 Funding of the Regulatory Authority
4.4.3.1 Funding model for the regulator must be outlined in terms of the legislations and Regulations, since certainty for the funding of the regulator will ensure independence from the industry role players especially if self-regulation is adopted. Under self-regulation the provincial regulatory authority will conduct regulatory oversight and table the reports to the Executive Authorities within the respective provinces.

4.4.3.2 Consistent funding can be derived from the following:

4.4.3.2.1 Any fees payable to a horseracing authority in terms of the horseracing authority’s constitution or rules;

4.4.3.2.2 Fees paid to the horseracing authority by racing operators in terms of the number of scheduled race meetings per year;

4.4.3.2.3 Income derived by the horseracing authority from its investment and deposit of surplus money;

4.4.3.2.4 Fees payable to the horseracing authority in terms of the Act or any other national or provincial legislation, and

4.4.3.2.5 Other money accruing to a horseracing authority from any source.

Recommendation Funding for the Regulatory Authority must be determined and provided for in terms of the legislation and regulations.”
The business of bookmakers is also considered in the policy document. In this regard the following is opined:-

“4.4.5 Bookmakers
4.4.5.1 There is a longstanding dispute between the bookmakers, operators and the horseracing industry. The dispute is about bookmakers collecting open bets or bets on the results of totalisator betting without contributing to the intellectual property of the owners as operators to the horseracing industry. The bookmakers must be required to contribute a market related amount towards the Intellectual Property rights affected. On the same issue the bookmakers keep on taking bets from the lotteries results and that undermines the Lotteries Act – Paragraph on lotteries above applies to bookmakers as well.

Recommendation Definition of bookmakers should be amended to that Bookmakers pay for the Intellectual Property (IP laws) rights attached to the totalisator system. A market related rate should be determined in terms of the IP laws.”
Do Not Go Gentle
They say silence implies consent. Do not allow your silence be construed as consent. Important decisions are being made regarding the future of horseracing and betting and if you want to have a say, now is your opportunity. It makes no difference who you are or what your standing may be, you have rights and in particular, a right to be heard.

Should you wish to comment, you have every right to furnish your views and comments to TShale@thedti.gov.za by 22 June 2015.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

By: Robyn Louw
Read More on SportingPost.co.za

I'm a big fan of Robyn, but must confess that I can't make head or tail from what she is trying to say here - I know the article addresses the National Gambling Policy, but I can't figure out which of the issues (if any) I should comment on - probably a case of me being unable to read 'legalese'

Well done again Robyn
I am sure most punters (with day jobs ) just find everything far to complicated
We have committees , sub committees different organizations and bodies trying to justify their existence and using that many smokes screens and red tape it becomes very difficult for a person just wanting to have a punt to try and decipher where to start.
I could write a book on application to have legal slots machines on the subject of illegal (no prob, how many and when can we deliver)
The proper route in SA is never easy that is why the back door is chosen in preference by many.

Frodo I think the main point is that this has been going on since May and The DTI are asking for public participation/input. Racing officialdom have been making representations but i don't think they have told their members or the public.

read the 'recommendation' bits and say if you agree or not, and why not.

Ok Don

So basically should bookies pay the operators for using their tote prices to settle punters.
The IP comes in that the tote prices are established by the number of winning tickets into the hold.
The same could apply to lotto numbers it's also the IP of the lotto so should bookies pay lotto owners a percentage for using the lucky numbers at fixed odds.

I am sure this went to court ? I gather the outcome was in favour of the bookies.

and what about the bit where the NHRA must self regulate?

I am reading from bottom back up but would be in favour concern would be the funding but they should be stand alone and basically "untouchable "

Hi all,

Thanks so much - always appreciate support from ABC

Frodo - I'm not trying to say a great deal other than to make the general public aware that this process is currently under way and that they are inviting public participation.

The full document is quite a lot to take in, so I highlighted the bits that I thought were most relevant. Some bits will be more relevant to some people than to others.

Essentially the DTI is setting out their version of how they currently view racing, along with some recommendations. I very specifically did not set out any of my personal views on any of the points as I feel strongly that racing stakeholders need to make themselves aware of what is going on and make up our own minds how we want our industry to be run.

If you have any comments on the DTI's version of racing, any of the points listed or any of the recommendations made (or even anything else), then you have a chance to do so now.

I feel that there are a number of areas that deserve comment. The first point (perhaps pernickety on my behalf) is in 4.4.1.1. where they state that "Gold Circle operates only in the KZN and Western Cape provinces" which is an incorrect assumption as Gold Circle operates in KZN.

In 4.4.1.3 states 'The policy consideration need to determine if the self- regulation model in the horseracing industry should be retained as it is or a totally new model should be adopted'. Here they are considering whether we should continue to be allowed to run our own sport under the NHA, or whether a new regulatory function should be sought (and also whether that should be a statutory / government run organisation). I'm sure there will be lots of people with strong views on this point.

I am pleased that they have devoted an entire section dealing specifically with the role of the NHA and how it is set up and run. I feel that this section is absolutely critical and deserves a lot of input.

It is my view that in order to run our sport effectively, we need a strong and independent regulator in order to ensure a fair and equitable basis for all participants. If we are being given an opportunity to say how we think this should be set up, then I for one, definitely appreciate the opportunity to have a say.

For example, do we want the NHA to be a statutorily recognised body? (ie run by government). If yes, then we need to say so. If not, then we also need to say so.

If we want to keep our current NHA set-up, then are we happy with the existing version, or do we want any changes?

Then the document deals with ways of funding a regulatory body. Perhaps the best way to look at this is to consider how the NHA is currently being funded (primarily via the operators), whether we think that is a good and effective way of doing things and then whether we think some changes might be beneficial.

There is a section dealing with Bookmakers (which I think is good, as they are also part of the racing community). The wording of 4.4.5.1 makes it sound as though the DTI doesn't fully appreciate that the matter of the open bet has been settled in court and implies (to me anyway) that they do not understand the dispute between the operators and the bookmakers very well. Perhaps they need clarification on this point.

The document also addresses the issue of transformation. Again, I'm sure a lot of people will have comments on this aspect.

And on it goes.

In short, I think there are a host of different issues up for discussion and input here. I appreciate that it is a pretty wordy document and that it is tough to chew through, but decisions are going to be made one way or another and those decisions are going to affect all of us. Therefore I think it's quite important that we are all included and that we do all get to have a say.

I am intrigued about the self-regulation. As mentioned, the NHA has been self-regulated for some time now but they seem so toothless as they seemingly seem to be only answerable to the racing authorities who pay them. I would like to see an NHA who, should they need to, has the guts to call in an effective national police just like Mauritius and the UK.

The policy proposal regarding Horseracing and Betting is that “horseracing be statutorily regulated in that the self-regulation model be formally recognised subject to being monitored by Provincial Licensing Authorities (PLAs), and the minimisation of animal welfare issues". - "and the minimisation of animal welfare issues". I wonder what this means. We need animal welfare issues. The horse's welfare must be first. Or, opening up for dog racing?

Thank you zsuz for putting in the effort to clarify the issues in plain English

Mac - the full document can be downloaded here:-

www.gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/38...-5_TradeIndustry.pdf

It is 64 pages (yes, eeeek - I know !), but I do urge people to have a go at reading it as it gives you a full oversight of what is being discussed (my article just picked out the points that I thought were the most immediately relevant for racing).

Point 2.12 states "The policy does not propose introduction of new gambling activities like online gambling, greyhound or animal racing. Introduction of online gambling requires a policy shift in regard to the destination approach to gambling as it proposes bringing gambling activities more closer to people. This aspect is considered against the concern regarding problem gambling in South Africa, and measures to combat it successfully. The possible expansion of animal racing beyond horse racing also poses
challenges, including significant animal welfare concerns and proliferation. Other forms of gambling should remain illegal as the proliferation of gambling, rising levels of problem gambling, employment and inadequate enforcement capacity weigh more
against any argument in support of lifting the ban on this activity at this point."

So it looks as though - at this stage anyway - they do not consider the benefits of greyhound or other animal racing to outweigh the possible drawbacks and are not looking to go that direction. However, the entire document is up for public input, so if you have any comments on the issue, you are welcome to make them.

I think putting welfare on the list of considerations is a great idea. Organisations such as the SPCA and Horse Care Units do sterling work and there are a number of independent programmes dedicated to transitioning horses off the track, but they are all independently run and funded (which is always the challenging bit). Perhaps now is a good time to look at a formal industry programme to address these issues.

Frodo - your point is a very good one. If we, the public, do not understand exactly what the DTI's intentions are because of the way the document is worded, then we should ask for clarification. This stuff will affect us and it's important that we understand what they are saying so that we can participate intelligently. I'm also not a legal person and I also feel that the document is difficult to understand - it certainly took me several goes and I'm pretty sure that my interpretation of the document will be quite different to the next person. Adv Maselle added some commentary on the SP site and he had some interesting and quite different interpretations to what I did. Of course, he's a legally trained mind and certain aspects will be more meaningful to him than they might be to someone else, but that's all good and well and is essentially why this document is being offered for public comment. If everyone offers their little bit, then we should collect quite a lot of different thoughts and ideas, which is what the DTI are asking for.