STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the government outline who comprises the Casino task force and who, from the welfare sector, was included—noting that we have been told that the government for over two years has been negotiating with the Casino operator about renewing its licence, about changes to the regulations that are part of the Casino and, indeed, about the rates of tax payable and other measures? The government set up a Casino task force so could it please indicate who was on that task force?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Would you just repeat that quickly?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I asked whether the government could indicate who was on the Casino task force, particularly with regard to the welfare sector, but actually an entirety of the membership would be appreciated. Should there have been any changeovers, if those could be acknowledged that would also be useful.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have the answers to a number of questions that were raised during the second reading contributions, including the membership of the task force, so perhaps if I put that on the record now and then we can deal with any other outstanding matters as we proceed.

At the end of the last sitting week, I gave some closing remarks addressing the government's broad approach to the many amendments. I noted that the government intends to oppose amendments that seek to unbundle the bill and those amendments that remove protections provided for in this bill for smaller community and regional venues. The government also intends to oppose amendments that seek to constrain the time frame for implementation, as well as those amendments that have the potential to prevent venues that wish to voluntarily exit the industry from exiting. I thanked the members for their contributions.

There were questions from the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in his second reading contribution. He sought additional information about the Responsible Gambling Working Party and recommendations. The Responsible Gambling Working Party's fifth progress report sets out a recommended approach to implementing precommitment in South Australia. This report is publicly available from the Treasury and Finance website. The working party's terms of reference since 2006 have always been focused on assembling the best possible evidence to understand and advise on how precommitment should be implemented in South Australia.

The members of the working party were: Ms Eve Barratt, Lifeline South East; Mr David Di Troia, United Voice; Ms Rosemary Hambledon, Relationships Australia; Mr Mark Henley, Uniting Communities; Mr Ian Horne, Australian Hotels Association; Mr Andrew Lamb, Adelaide Casino; Mr Cameron Taylor, Clubs SA; and Ms Cheryl Vardon, the Australasian Gaming Council.

The working party made three major recommendations and four secondary recommendations. At this stage of the debate, it is worthwhile to place on the record what these were and how we have responded to them. The first major recommendation of the working party was:

That technology is available on all gaming machines in venues by 2016 to allow gamblers to set voluntary limits on their gambling expenditure.

The government accepted this recommendation and the bill we are currently considering proposes a light-handed regulatory approach to achieve this outcome. The second major recommendation of the working party is:

That small venues are exempt from this timetable and that the following timetable is applied:

very small venues with 10 or less gaming machines will be able to implement pre-commitment in line with the normal gambling machine replacement cycle; and

venues with between 11 and 20 gaming machines will have an extra four years to implement the changes (ie. until the end of 2020).

The government has accepted this recommendation in full; in fact, venues with between 11 and 20 gaming machines will actually have an extra six years. The third major recommendation of the working party is:

That a major program of community education and venue staff training is undertaken to both explain the purpose of limit setting and to promote responsible gambling.

The government accepted this recommendation, and this bill includes the necessary changes to implement this recommendation by improving training and addressing in-venue messaging.

There is no doubt that venue staff are a critical component of offering gaming services in a responsible manner. All gaming venues will be required to have staff trained in the identification of problem gambling, use of precommitment for budget-setting by customers and use of risk-monitoring systems that assist staff to identify potential problem gambling behaviour.

Although substantially an enterprise bargaining issue to be resolved at an industrial level, in principle, the government supports the idea that the cost of this training should be met by the employer and undertaken in paid work time. The Gaming Regulation Reference Group is currently collaboratively working on the details of new basic and advanced training requirements and new public awareness material to support precommitment and responsible gaming in general. The first of the secondary recommendations was:

That the RGWP continues to work consultatively with all stakeholders to develop a clear implementation pathway to voluntary pre-commitment to meet the 2016 [time frame].

The government did not accept this recommendation. While the working party had the right composition of people and skills to develop a plan for precommitment, the government considered that the more practical hands-on approach was required for its implementation. In February 2013, the government disbanded the working party and established a new gaming regulation reference group.

Membership of the reference group includes Harry Bourlotos, the Independent Gaming Corporation; Robyn Buckler, United Voice; Mr Robert Chappell, Independent Gambling Authority; Mr Andrew Cockington, UnitingCare Wesley Country SA Port Pirie; Mr Kym Della-Torre, Department of Treasury and Finance; Ms Rosemary Hambledon, Relationships Australia; Mr Phil Harrison, Club Safe; Ms Nerissa Kilvert, Consumer and Business Services; Mr Tony Morgan, Adelaide Casino Host Responsibility; Ms Mergho Ray, Relationships Australia; Ms Leanne Singh, Office for Problem Gambling; and Mr Wally Woehlert, Gaming Care.

This reference group and its specialist subgroups demonstrate that the government remains committed to a collaborative approach to developing and implementing gaming sector reforms. The second of the secondary recommendations is:

that necessary work is commenced to amend relevant legislation and to develop regulations to enable precommitment changes to take place.

The government accepted this recommendation and commenced work on developing the bill to enable precommitment changes to take place. This is the bill that is currently being considered by the council.

The third of the secondary recommendations is that the working party will advise relevant organisations on community training and staff training frameworks. The government accepts the recommendation. The gaming regulation reference group and the replacement for the working party has already started work on this task. The fourth and final secondary recommendation is:

to note that the work of the Independent Gaming Corporation, in planning for a new central monitoring system, will impact on voluntary precommitment advanced functionality.

The government recognises the critical role that the Independent Gaming Corporation will have in successful implementation of reforms contemplated in this bill. It is for this reason that the Independent Gaming Corporation is a member of the gaming regulation reference group. In short, all of the recommendations of the working party have been implemented. The only variation is that the government took a view that the responsibility for implementing this work should shift to a group representing organisations that have a direct and practical role in implementation.

Despite all this, South Australia will not be the first jurisdiction in the nation to require gaming machines to have precommitment. I understand Victoria is committed to implementing precommitment on all gaming machines by the end of 2015. Like South Australia, precommitment is already available in some venues in Queensland and New South Wales. In addition to the working party, this bill is informed by work relating to the tax regulatory environment for the Adelaide Casino.

The Hon. Rob Lucas in his second reading contribution sought additional information about the Casino task force. The task force was established by the government in 2010 to make recommendations to the government as to what tax and regulatory arrangements should apply to the Adelaide Casino once the exclusivity period expired in 2015. The Casino task force was across government agency groups. The representatives on the group were Ms Jackie Bishop, Transport Planning and Infrastructure; Mr Robert Chappell, Independent Gambling Authority; Ms Kate Georgiou, Tourism SA; Mr Garry Goddard, Treasury and Finance; Mr Gaby Jaksa, Crown Solicitor's Office; Ms Lindy McAdam, Office for Problem Gambling; Mr Paul White, Consumer and Business Services; and Mr Ben Wilson, Premier and Cabinet.

The Casino task force undertook an analysis of the market segments within which the Adelaide Casino operated, and provided comprehensive advice to the government about taxation exclusivity, capacity and responsible gambling. The advice of the task force underpins the Casino aspects of this bill.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the Hon. Kelly Vincent sought additional information about the approved licensing agreement. The key features of the approved licensing agreement were publicly announced by the government and SkyCity on 19 December 2012. The government has largely concluded the drafting of the approved licensing agreement; however, the agreement is not yet executed partly because of the uncertainty about whether this bill will progress in a form that offers consistent regulatory framework across the gaming machine market segment.

It would be reasonable to expect that, once the regulatory framework is settled, the agreement would be executed shortly thereafter. Once the approved licensing agreement is executed and approved by the Independent Gambling Authority, the minister is required under section 18 of the act to lay the agreements before both houses of parliament. The approved licensing agreement does include a variation payment of $20 million from SkyCity to the South Australian government once the agreement becomes unconditional.

An important condition that must be met before the agreement becomes unconditional is that the regulatory framework, including amendments contained in this bill, is in place and operational. An up-front payment is not an unusual feature of regulatory tax and exclusivity arrangements. Indeed, the recently announced arrangements from Crown Sydney include a $100 million up-front payment in relation to premium customers and, as announced in the SkyCity media release dated 19 December 2012, premium customers would be defined to include:

international visitors (tourists and gaming program players);

interstate visitors (tourists and gaming program players); and

local SA residents playing above agreed annual expenditure thresholds and meeting harm minimisation requirements. Customers must be registered members of the approved loyalty program and meet certain expenditure, host responsibility and behavioural criteria.

Further details of these matters would be included in an amended approved licensing agreement and will be subject to the approval of the Independent Gambling Authority. At this stage these matters are being finalised under commercial-in-confidence provisions and should not be publicly released; however, I can confirm that the expenditure thresholds are significantly greater than the $1,000 amount suggested by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire.

The Hon. John Darley raised a series of questions about the Adelaide Casino development. The bill does not directly relate to the Adelaide Casino development. The regulatory framework would apply regardless of whether or not the Adelaide Casino is redeveloped in its current location or another location. The bill should be considered on its merits; nevertheless, councillors would be aware that on 17 July 2013, the government released a proposed development plan amendment for the Adelaide Riverbank for consultation. The proposed Riverbank Health and Entertainment Areas Development Plan Amendment will apply to areas adjacent to the River Torrens between the Adelaide Festival Plaza through to the Royal Adelaide Hospital site along North Terrace. Consultation on the development plan amendment is open to the general public and ends 10 September 2013.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Rob Lucas sought some information on the level of gambling activity and the impact of the proposed measures contained in the bill. In terms of the club and hotel industry structure, the licensing system administered by Consumer and Business Services does not record searchable information about the corporate structure of each individual licensee. As a result, it is not possible to easily identify which licensees are ultimately controlled by multinational corporations without a detailed review of each licensee's corporate structure.

In total, the club and hotel sector generated net gambling revenue (the amount spent by customers) of around $743 million in 2011-12. Of this amount, $452 million was retained by clubs and hotels and around $291 million was paid by venues as gaming taxes. Over the forward estimates, as noted by the budget papers, gaming machine revenue is expected to grow broadly in line with household consumption expenditure. The forward estimates had been adjusted to incorporate the impact of the measures proposed in the bill. The responsible gambling measures contained in the bill will be introduced over time. The full impact of the responsible gambling measures in the club and hotel sector will not occur until 2017-18, which is beyond the forward estimates.

The full impact on the club and hotel sector of the responsible gambling measures is estimated to be around a $28 million decrease in net gambling revenue from 2017-18 and a $12 million decrease in gaming tax from 2017-18. The actual outcomes will be dependent on the level of take-up of precommitment.

Treasury and Finance revenue modelling considered the impact of the various measures on the total demand for gambling. It did not involve an analysis at the venue level. There was some concern raised by members of both houses that the regional and venue impact of removing coin machines in 2020 was not separately assessed. The market for gaming is highly competitive and innovative; it will respond to the circumstances it faces and develop low-cost solutions.

Real-world examples of this include small electronic modules that modify the behaviour of older gaming machines so that they offer the latest responsible gambling features at a fraction of the cost of a new gaming machine. The government has no doubt that during the period between now and 2020 when coin machines are proposed to be removed from minor venues, the technology associated with precommitment, automated risk monitoring and cashless gaming will be more mature and available at a much lower cost. It is difficult to see how any person could accurately foretell these technological advances and cost reductions.

This is why the approach adopted in the bill provides three pathways that any venue can voluntarily choose to follow. They are:

1. Become a major venue. The venue can be of any size up to 60 gaming machines with advanced systems to assist venues to meet their responsible gambling obligations.

2. Become a minor venue. They must have 20 or fewer gaming machines and offer a more personal approach to meeting their responsible gambling obligations.

3. Exit the industry by selling their gaming machine entitlements through the approved trading system, receiving the market value for those entitlements, which could then be reinvested into the venue.

Similarly, there have been some amendments filed in relation to cash facilities and, specifically, automatic teller machines. Some councillors have noted during debate that the new commonwealth gaming machine laws have added another layer of complexity for compliance for the industry. The government has received information from the ATM industry about compliance with the measures that the bill proposes as part of the ATM industry's ongoing diligence to ensure that it continues to meet its legal obligations in South Australia.

The bill provides for the repeal of existing provisions that are incompatible with commonwealth ATM regulations and replaces them with the power of the Governor to make regulations that prescribe withdrawal limits for cash facilities, including ATMs. This means the existing $200 per withdrawal limit for transactions involving ATMs at gaming venues will cease to exist. It is the government's intention to only prescribe a $200 per transaction limit for EFTPOS. This represents the current operational practice in the gaming sector.

No limit will be prescribed for ATMs. This will remove the possibility of incompatibility between the commonwealth and South Australian regulatory regimes. The effect is that the ATM withdrawal limit in South Australia will be set under the commonwealth gaming regulations at $250 per card per 24-hour period at ATMs which are located in club and hotel venues. The government will prepare draft regulations for consultation with the industry well in advance of the commonwealth's commencement date of 1 February 2014, with the objective of making regulations in October for concurrent commencement on 1 February 2014.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Rob Lucas raised questions and sought additional information about the approved trading system. The approved trading system established under the Gaming Machines Act has two purposes: the first is to enable the transfer of gaming machine entitlements between venues; the second is to remove from sellers one in four gaming machine entitlements, with those entitlements either being cancelled or transferred to Club One. There is no doubt that the initial approved trading scheme was fundamentally flawed because of the price fixed in legislation for the trade of gaming machine entitlements. This fixed price was removed from the Gaming Machines Act in 2011.

In developing the market rules for gaming machine entitlements, the Department of Treasury and Finance employed well-known economic concepts. Four market options were publicly consulted on—bilateral trade, notice board trade, pool trade and periodic trade. These options were assessed against five criteria—low risk, fair, simple, low-cost, transparent and voluntary. The conclusion was the periodic trade model was the best overall model against those criteria. The problem facing the approved trading system is one of excess supply of gaming machine entitlements, that is, there are more sellers than buyers.

I am advised that no change in the trading model would overcome this fundamental problem. It is for this reason the bill includes measures that are expected to increase the demand for gaming machine entitlements. For the purposes of modelling, Treasury and Finance adopted a conservative assumption that 500 gaming machine entitlements would be traded over the forward estimates. These figures were based on observed levels of excess supply at the time of modelling. The outcome could significantly differ from the modelling, depending on how venues respond to the changed regulatory environment.

A key measure to address this excess supply is the requirement for the Adelaide Casino to purchase its gaming machine entitlement from the approved trading system. Given the excess supply present in the market, it would be reasonable to expect that the Adelaide Casino would be able to purchase most, if not all, of the gaming machine entitlements it requires for its expanded Casino.

The government appreciates, however, that SkyCity needs certainty about its ability to procure the entitlements that will underpin its investment in an expanded Adelaide Casino. It is for this reason the bill includes a reserve provision, which allows for up to 300 non-tradeable premium gaming machine entitlements to be purchased by the Adelaide Casino from the government, if these cannot be purchased through the approved trading system, despite the Adelaide Casino's best efforts.

The purchase of non-tradeable premium gaming machine entitlements from the government would not increase the number of gaming machines available for use by the general public. These entitlements can only be used in the Adelaide Casino's premium gaming areas. Nevertheless, the statutory target in the regulations would not change, which means that over time these additional entitlements would be removed through the approved training system forfeiture requirements.

The Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire questioned the impact of problem gambling on the proposal to increase the maximum number of gaming machines from 40 to 60 for major gaming venues. The approach adopted by the government is consistent with the view offered by the Independent Gambling Authority. The authority's longstanding position is that the first priority in the management of the reduced number of gaming machines must be reduced by both the number and the proportion of licensed premises within gaming machines. This underpins the original recommendation in 2003 that continues to be the authority's view, supported by the evidence taken then by the authority and its ongoing observations.

Let me explain the authority's position further. The reduction in the number and proportion of premises with gaming means that there will be more gaming machine-free options for problem gamblers in terms of recreation, and for some people at least the level of intrusion into their lives will be reduced. This leads to consideration of the question of venue size. It is the case that there are well-managed small venues in South Australia where customers are well known and looked after.

However, at the whole of state level those businesses do not have the critical mass to justify the sort of investment in human resources and technology required for the appropriate level of assurance that help will be offered when it is needed. Indeed, with machine numbers of 20 or less the contribution of gaming to a hotel or club business does not bring with it the commercial imperative to deploy the necessary resources. On the other hand, if the venue is host to 40 or more machines, there can be no question that the highest standards of compliance with responsible gambling practice can be called for and expected.

As to venue size, 'super venue' is not an appropriate description for the 60-machine site in the Australian context. In Victoria, hotels and clubs can be licensed to 105 machines. In New South Wales, the nominal cap on clubs is 450, but there are some remarkable sites, with thousands of machines installed before the 450 limit was put in place, while in Queensland the cap on club premises is 280.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent, in her second reading contribution, questioned the government's proposed $5 maximum bet and not a $1 maximum bet. It is the government's view that the maximum bet for non-premium gaming machines at the Adelaide Casino, as well as clubs and hotels, should be reduced. The current maximum is $10 on South Australian gaming machines and is only shared by New South Wales and the ACT. All other jurisdictions have a maximum bet of $5 on gaming machines in club and hotel venues. South Australia does not have a significant market share of gaming machines in Australia. South Australia is not in a position to influence the national market for gaming machines.

A pragmatic to the maximum bet needs to be applied. This bill proposals to do that by reducing the maximum bet from $10 to $5, a point that most other Australian jurisdictions have already implemented. Any consideration below $5 can only really be done in concert with other major jurisdictions.

The Hon. Tammy Franks in her second reading contribution sought assurances that money placed into various funds under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 were being allocated and used according to the policy intention of the council. The Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund receives $3.845 million per annum in gaming machine tax revenue which is used to provide financial assistance towards programs for, or related to, minimising problem gambling or the rehabilitation of problem gamblers. The fund also receives an additional $2 million contribution from clubs and hotels through the Independent Gaming Corporation, and $110,000 from the Adelaide Casino, taking its total contribution to $5.955 million.

Funding recipients include regional, indigenous and culturally diverse gambling help services such as the Southern Adelaide Regional Gambling Help Services, provided by Relationships Australia; the Far North Regional Gambling Help Services, provided by Uniting Care Wesley Port Pirie; the Murray and Mallee, provided by Aboriginal Family Support Services; and the Anglicare Cambodian Service.

The Community Development Fund receives $20 million per annum, which is allocated towards the provision of government health, welfare or education services and to provide financial assistance for non-government welfare agencies and community development. Programs assisted by contributions from the Community Development Fund in 2011-12 included:

the Contemporary Music Program;

the Positive Parenting Strategy through Parenting SA;

the Aboriginal Power Cup;

Health and Community Care Funded Disability Services; and

Learning Technologies (incorporating the eduCONNECT service to schools).

The Charitable and Social Welfare Fund receives $4 million per annum, which is used to support the work for not-for-profit charities and community-based social welfare organisations. Organisations receiving funding include:

the Bethany Tabor Lutheran Parish Incorporated to purchase play equipment to support an outreach centre;

the Wynbring Jida Multifunctional Aboriginal Children's Services Incorporated to facilitate the purchase of administration equipment;

the Lions Club of Strathalbyn and District Incorporated to install kitchen equipment to a catering van to provide mobile disaster relief; and

the Bowden Brompton Community Group Incorporated to upgrade facilities.

The Sport and Recreation Fund receives $3.5 million per annum, providing financial assistance to sporting and recreational organisations that do not have gaming machine licences to facilitate, for example, the purchase of sporting equipment and facility upgrades. Organisations receiving funding in 2011-12 included:

the Booleroo Centre Tennis Club to assist with the surface upgrade;

the Cumberland United Women's Football Club to assist with lighting;

the Forestville Eagles Basketball Club to assist with equipment;

the Glencoe Social Trail Riding Club to assist with maintenance equipment; and

the Kaltjiti community to assist with the purchase of sporting equipment.

The allocation of moneys from these funds is, in some instances, published on websites and, in the case of the Sport and Recreation Fund, is subject to the annual scrutiny of the Economic and Finance Committee. Again, I thank members for their contribution.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At the outset, given the proximity of the luncheon break, I wonder whether it would be possible for the government to provide a written copy of the minister's reply to those members who might be interested—I certainly would be and I suspect other members would be; I see nods from other members in the chamber—through the parliamentary staff or the government staff so that we might be able to have a closer look at it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can provide copies.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Certainly the Greens would appreciate being able to read and digest the responses that the minister has just read out. In addition, I want to raise a further question arising from the minister's answer regarding the variation payment of $20 million from the Casino contained within this bill, which comes with some guarantees of the regulatory framework being settled. My question is: does that regulatory framework also extend to the liquor licence of the Casino, and does it extend to a provision to protect the Casino from any changes, such as the 3am lock-in, that will affect all other licensed premises in the vicinity but not the Casino?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised it addresses only those matters relating to gambling and not liquor licensing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Can the minister advise: the land required for the Casino development, is that to be sold, leased or given to the Casino, and if so, if it is to be leased or sold, would that be at market values? If none of those, can the minister advise what are the arrangements?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These questions are completely irrelevant to the bill that is before us today. I have responded about the Casino development in clause 1, so I encourage the honourable member to refer to that section.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister: the Casino tax rate, so I am told, is 10.91 per cent (in the budget papers) for premium gaming machines. Can the minister confirm if it is true that the Casino has announced to the New Zealand stock exchange that it will shift most, if not all, of its machines into the VIP lounge as premium gaming machines to avail itself of the 10.91 per cent tax rate?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is likely that some of the gaming machines will be moved into the VIP room, but certainly not the majority of them.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister, over the lunch break, to find out just what percentage of machines will be shifted. Also, another point that ties in with this, can the minister advise the council what the definition of a high roller will be for the VIP room; that is, is that someone who spends $1,000 a year in the Casino? What are the terms and conditions of people being eligible for that area?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the request for the number of machines being moved into the VIP section, my understanding, or the advice I have received, is that no final decision has been made about that yet, so that is still under consideration. In relation to the question asked about the definition of the high roller, again, I have indicated that the premium customers will be defined as international visitors, tourists and gaming programs, interstate visitors, tourists and gaming programs and local SA residents playing above an agreed annual expenditure threshold and meeting harm minimisation requirements. Customers must be registered members of the approval loyalty scheme and meet certain expenditure, host responsibility and behavioural criteria.

I indicated that further details will be included in the amended approved licensing agreement and will be subject to the approval of the Independent Gambling Authority. At this stage these matters are being finalised under commercial-in-confidence provisions and, obviously, should not be publicly released. However, I can confirm that the expenditure thresholds are significantly greater than the $1,000 which you suggested in your second reading contribution.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: All that does is open an absolute can of worms on this whole debate. Here we have the government wanting to force this legislation through in the next day or two, and yet the same government is just confirming that fundamental questions like who is going to be eligible to go into the VIP room remain unanswered. That will include a significant number, I would suggest, of gamblers (some of whom would be problem gamblers) going in there. Whilst they have ruled out it being $1,000 they are telling us at this point in time that we have to trust them in that there will be some sort of mechanism put in place before the licence is issued.

I have a major concern about that and question the government when it comes to its genuine focus on harm minimisation and trying to prevent problem gambling. Whilst the licence has not been finalised yet, surely the government must have some indication, surely the government has not just signed off on this so-called commercial-in-confidence arrangement without better clarity than that. I ask the minister now or after lunch to come back with some more precise figures.

Given that the Casino has always had a favoured deal compared to clubs and hotels ever since it was sold, I ask the minister to let us know what Treasury has projected will be the amount of revenue going into that VIP area. I think most South Australians, whether they agree with poker machines or not, would be very concerned to think that a government that is so keen to get this facility up and running before the next election would sign off on a contract whereby they will be forgoing revenue that they could have taken at a time when the state is in a desperate financial management position. It will sign off on this and allow the Casino to roll a heap of its income into a lower taxation threshold. To me, that is very bad business. I think we need a better explanation than that after lunch, and I ask for that explanation to be more detailed than saying, 'Trust me, I'm from the government.'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the honourable member for pursuing the need for further detail. What I can offer is that officers would be happy to meet with him over the lunch break and provide him with a verbal briefing and update.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the minister for that, and I will take that offer up after my next meeting at 1 o'clock. However, I think the parliament is also entitled to that information.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already indicated quite clearly that there are matters that are commercial-in-confidence and I am not prepared to put them on the public record. However, as I have indicated, we can provide verbal briefs with what information we can pass on and then the honourable member can make up his mind as to whether that satisfies his concerns or not.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:17]