<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2021-06-09" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3711" />
  <endPage num="3747" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>SkyCity Adelaide</name>
      <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000201">
        <heading>SkyCity Adelaide</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="5418" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. C. BONAROS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2021-06-09">
            <name>SkyCity Adelaide</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2021-06-09T15:13:33" />
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000202">
          <timeStamp time="2021-06-09T15:13:33" />
          <by role="member" id="5418">The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:13):</by>  I seek leave to ask the Treasurer a question about SkyCity Adelaide Casino.</text>
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000203">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="5418" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. C. BONAROS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000204">
          <by role="member" id="5418">The Hon. C. BONAROS:</by>  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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="605" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. R.I. LUCAS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <startTime time="2021-06-09T15:14:17" />
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000205">
          <timeStamp time="2021-06-09T15:14:17" />
          <by role="member" id="605">The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:14):</by>  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 <term>Hansard</term> 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.</text>
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000206">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.</text>
        <text id="202106097ea4b055c8e84122a0000207">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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>