SkyCity Adelaide

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:13): I seek leave to ask the Treasurer a question about SkyCity Adelaide Casino.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As I asked earlier, given that SkyCity is only able to operate by virtue of the Casino Act and its agreement with the government, and given also your comments today that AUSTRAC is the appropriate agency to look at allegations of money laundering, does that mean that the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, the regulator, doesn't have the same powers to investigate issues involving money laundering or other illegal activity?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:14): All I can repeat is the advice I received via, I think, the Attorney-General's office from the commissioner yesterday or the day before, which indicated it was the commissioner's view that AUSTRAC had both the expertise and responsibility for investigating allegations of money laundering and whatever the other aspect of their act was. I forget the precise legal definition or term that was used, but the Hansard record will show what I quoted from yesterday. I can only share the commissioner's advice that was shared with the government that that was his judgement in relation to it.

Given the definition the honourable member's colleague highlighted today, that the definition of, whatever it was, 'politically exposed person' involves not just state but also national and international organisations and associates of state, national and international organisations, if we think about the capacity of a state-based regulator as opposed to the capacity of a national regulator with all the resources available to a national regulator, on behalf of the national government, it is fairly self-evident that the advice of the commissioner is soundly based, that AUSTRAC is the appropriate agency to do it.

That is why, as I indicated yesterday, the commissioner's advice was that he was consulting with AUSTRAC and he had placed his review on hold pending the results of the AUSTRAC investigations.