26 October 2021

Hon Robert Simms:

Mr Chairman, before commenting on the detail of the amendment that is before you, I will respond to the tabling of the letter from the Auditor-General by the Treasurer. I welcome that information. It would have been helpful to have had that provided to us a little bit earlier than it being tabled in parliament. I do want to point out, Chair, that when we were last here together, and I moved to insert this amendment and we were going to progress this to a vote, the Treasurer spoke quite passionately about how unfair it was for the matter to be sprung on him and he talked about the lack of engagement with the government around my amendment.

I was persuaded by that, as I think the crossbenchers were, and more time was provided to the government. We adjourned the debate and now we have come back two weeks later. It is disappointing to see a letter relating to the amendment being tabled in this fashion without giving anybody the opportunity to take that into consideration as part of the debate.

I will point out, though, that there is an opportunity for amendments to be made should this pass this chamber, for further amendments and finessing to occur between the houses. If there is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, there will be an opportunity to do that.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. It is what I consider to be a very important transparency measure and really what it does is ensure that the Auditor-General is required to provide approval for advertising in certain circumstances. It adds a really important transparency measure, I think, in terms of ensuring that the Auditor-General is required to approve certain government advertising, and that is advertising in particular circumstances and during the election period.

The government may be concerned that this is going to impact on advertising that they consider to be essential. The amendment makes it very clear that government advertising will be taken to be necessary for the proper functions of government if the Auditor-General is satisfied that the primary purpose of the government advertising is to communicate information relating to the following, and these things are stipulated.

I will not read them all, but they relate to public health and public safety, road and public transport, emergencies, legal or statutory matters, electoral material published under the authority of the Electoral Commissioner, and a range of other things. If anything has been missed that is considered essential, I am sure that that can be added in as part of the engagement between the two houses.

It is important to understand why this is so vitally important, and I think the Treasurer has talked a lot about his concerns around the spending of taxpayers' money in terms of setting up an independent budget office. He must then be aghast at the eye-watering advertising bill of his Liberal government, because it has been really quite outrageous.

It is worth remembering that, back in 2019, the Government Communications Advisory Committee was formed in July and it scaled back its public reporting on communication campaigns cost and effectiveness by the year 2020. As of June 2020, that body had published just one evaluation report for the financial year and in the previous financial year the government had reported monthly on campaigns on their costs and their effectiveness.

On 1 September 2020, this group changed its official guidelines and in addition to the rules requiring public reporting of the total cost and evaluation summary for each approved communications initiative, which was usually done after completion, the GCAC would now publish the cost of each campaign as it begins. Well, that was what was meant to happen, but the new guidelines did not specify a time frame for the reporting campaigns and therefore there was a significant lag in reporting.

Indeed, InDaily reported on this last year and it was noted that, despite numerous reporting campaigns being approved in September, there had been no reporting on the Department of the Premier and Cabinet website as required by the new guidelines. That is very disappointing.

The GCAC report for September 2020, made available at the end of October 2020, contains some information which I think is relevant to highlight here. There were at least six campaigns approved, worth a total of more than $8.8 million. The bulk of spending, more than $5 million, was for interstate and intrastate tourism campaigns, and $1.5 million was approved on 1 September for a campaign to attract New Zealand tourists.

Controversially, the government launched a $1.195 million taxpayer-funded campaign called Building What Matters, which was across various media platforms, promoting an infrastructure program in the wake of last year's state budget. That was scheduled to run until June 2021. This campaign does not explicitly include politicians, but in interviews and media politicians have referenced the campaign, a campaign that is paid for by the South Australian taxpayer.

The campaign promotes the government's infrastructure spend rather than giving direct information about individual projects. There have even been reports of cold marketing campaigns. This was reported by the ABC back on 26 March, indeed my birthday. I can tell you, it would not have been a welcome birthday present for me to receive one of these calls. According to this media report, members of the South Australian community were receiving phone calls promoting this Building What Matters campaign, a campaign funded by the South Australian taxpayer. The ABC has included an example of one of the voicemails which was left, and I will read it to you:

Good evening…I'm calling on behalf of the Premier, Steven Marshall—

it is like Amway—

and the state Liberal team to get your thoughts about the $16.7 billion infrastructure spend which will deliver safer roads, ensure that you have access to better healthcare closer to home and will deliver world-class schools for our kids.

That sounds like an ad to me. Despite the caller saying they were representing the Premier—and I am reading from the ABC here—the Premier denied any knowledge of the calls when asked by the ABC. He said:

I'm not aware of that…there's nothing wrong with going out and promoting the great work of [our] government.

That [could] be something you could take up with the Liberal Party.

It is unclear whether the call was made by a third party, who was paying for it or how the information was obtained. When asked whether or not the Liberal Party was paying for it or the taxpayer, Mr Marshall said, 'It's hard to comment because I haven't heard or seen the campaign that you're referring to.'

Quite frankly, that is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for the hard-earned money of South Australians to be wasted on PR for this state government. I can understand why they would want to be undertaking PR given the scandalous period they have faced, but it is not an appropriate use of taxpayer money and it is appropriate that this money is administered in an independent way and that there is some form of independent arbiter who can make a call on what is appropriate and what is not.

I am not suggesting the Governor-General take carriage of that—that is a step too far—but the Auditor-General is an appropriate body to take carriage of that. As I say, I note the concerns that they have expressed and that is something that can be worked through within the houses. I think this is a really important transparency measure. It is one that South Australians will welcome heading into this election and I commend it.

26 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I also rise in support of this bill. In doing so I want to begin by praising my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC for her leadership on this and for her long-time efforts here in this parliament advocating for the rights of working people. I also acknowledge the leadership of the union movement in running this campaign, in particular the SDA and the good work they have done in bringing this to the attention of people in this parliament.

As has been stated, over the last 18 months essential workers—that is, people working in our supermarkets, in our petrol stations, our fast food and hospitality outlets, allied health services, our medi-hotels, our aged-care homes—have been working incredibly hard to keep South Australians safe. They have been doing that during this once-in-a-century pandemic and during a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

What do they get in return for their hard work? A piece of coal from the Liberals this Christmas. I am not referring to the climate change policy, the woeful policy that Scott Morrison has announced, but rather the incredibly—

The PRESIDENT: The Prime Minister the Hon. Scott Morrison.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Hon. Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am of course referring to the Grinch-like behaviour of the state Liberal Party and the appalling way that they have approached this issue, and their refusal to recognise the rights of workers and recognise the fact that Christmas Day should be a public holiday for everybody.

There has been a lot said about the benefits of this bill. I will only speak briefly, but I want to read into Hansard some of the stories of people who will be directly affected. There have been some open letters sent to the Premier, talking about the benefits that will flow from this bill for families. I will start with one from Amber, who is a healthcare worker. She writes to the Premier:

Dear Premier,

I am an essential worker at a regional hospital. Throughout all of COVID, I and so many others have gone to work to keep normality and services open.

As life continues to be hard for all families, we essential workers still go to work on public holidays. Like Christmas day. A day when we essential workers would LOVE to be home with our families after everything Australians have endured [over] the last 18 months. But we have jobs to do, and part of what makes our lives a little more worth going to work [for], is the public holiday pay.

That pay helps alleviate a little of the financial burden with the extra pay from working the public holiday. But you don't want to give SA families that. You don't want to help out those families. You don't offer any incentive to hard working people who have gone to work still.

No reward for medical workers, or any workers. No thanks, we know you can't be with your families here is compensation in your pay.

The writer asks:

[Mr Premier] Will you go to work on Christmas Day, while thousands of us do? No, you won't. Will you stand up for the SA people you serve, and give them the public holiday pay they deserve, while you sit at home?

Beth, a Kmart worker, has written:

Dear Premier,

I would…like to know your reasoning for not declaring Christmas Day public holiday, as it should be. Thousands of workers are going to be working that day, and missing out on valuable family time on what is one of the most special days of the year. At a time when we should be at home with our loved ones, and showing them what they truly mean to us, you're more than happy to allow workers to miss out on that time with no compensation.

No amount of money can…compensate for lost family time, but having to go to work and get paid like it's [just another] day of the year is [an absolute] disgrace.

I cannot help but agree with those sentiments; it is a disgrace and it is one that the parliament should put right and we have an opportunity to do that today. It is really disappointing that we are in this position. The Liberals are creating a nightmare before Christmas for South Australian workers and it is time for this parliament to put that right.

26 August 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I welcome the opportunity to also put on the public record my opposition to this push to deregulate shop trading hours in South Australia. As has been stated, this is something that will have a terrible impact on small businesses in our state. It is a free kick for Coles and Woolies and it is a kick in the guts for the small business sector in South Australia. But do not just take my word for it, do not just take the word of the Greens for it, or the word of the Labor Party or the other crossbenchers. What does the peak lobby group representing the business sector in South Australia have to say about it? What do they have to say?

I had a look in today's paper—and it should be noted that Business SA is the go-to group for the Liberal Party when it comes to business policy. That is the group from which they seek their counsel, and the CEO of Business SA is a leading businessperson in his own right, a highly respected South Australian, indeed the former Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, with whom I had the pleasure of working many years ago. He is a highly respected person and somebody who has run many successful businesses in his own right. What does he have to say about it on behalf of Business SA, the peak body representing the business sector in this state, from whom the Liberal Party seek political counsel? He has said:

What got the board over the line—

in terms of their new position in opposition to the Liberals' policy—

was the somewhat unsung impact that total deregulation would have on the supply chains of the shopfronts.

There are thousands of businesses that get a start through independent retailers and if they lose the ability to get that start, it’s quite a significant impact.

What else does the Business SA charter say in this regard? They have released this today via an article in The Advertiser, and I am quoting from that. They said that with further liberalisation in the current environment there would need:

…to be a balance to ensure local independent retailers and their local supply chains can remain viable against national and multinational players which are better placed to absorb the higher costs of weekend and public holiday penalty rates.

In other words, this is going to have a terrible impact on the small players, and it really is a free kick for the big end of town, which we know the Liberal Party are all about.

So why on earth are they putting this forward when Business SA, the peak body from whom the Liberals take all their advice on business policy, has disavowed this toxic policy? I can only assume the last ones standing will be the Property Council and Daniel Gannon; I am sure he will be singing its praises. There is not anyone out there—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, he will be turning too.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: He is going to dump it.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He will be the next one to turn.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: He will be dumping it next. There is no-one out there in the community who actually supports this. It is opposed by the union movement. It is opposed by the business sector. Maybe the Property Council are the last ones standing, but they will be the next ones to dump it. So why on earth would the Liberals be putting this forward? Could it be that after just 3½ years they have already run out of ideas? Could it be that after 3½ years they are already running on empty when it comes to a vision for this state?

Back in a previous life, I remember being in the Senate on the days prior to the double dissolution election, that ill-fated double dissolution election that was called by Malcolm Turnbull, one of the many duds that the Liberal Party have sent to The Lodge over the last decade. Well, he had no vision for our country either, and I remember turning up to the Senate each day and looking at the Notice Paper, and what did I see? A blank sheet when it came to government business.

I am feeling a groundhog day here, as I look at the threadbare agenda of the Marshall government. After just 3½ years, what have they done? They have gone back to the cupboard and thought, 'What have we got sitting around? What's the frozen pizza we can pull out?' And it is this old chestnut that we have tried time and time again, a policy that has been knocked back by this parliament in the past, a policy that has been opposed by business leaders, union leaders, members of the community. What do we do when we are out of ideas? We go back to that old frozen pizza, we stick it in the microwave and out it comes. That is what we have seen here today with this old chestnut, the deeply unpopular and unsuccessful policy that has been promoted by the Treasurer.

I do want to make a few comments about the Liberal Party's obsession with referendums. They are very fond of referendums. Indeed, the last time the Liberals were pushing one—and, again, I mentioned the great dud that was Malcolm Turnbull; he loved referendums, particularly when it came to the rights of marginal people in our community. Of course, he subjected us to the pointless and highly divisive plebiscite on marriage equality.

Now it seems workers' rights are going to be subject to an opinion poll on behalf of the Liberals, such is the contempt with which they hold working people. It is a disgrace, it is a waste of this council's time, and it is, I think, treating working people with complete contempt. This is the party, supposedly, of small business, yet it is happy to kick small South Australian businesses in the guts in the middle of this pandemic.

This is the party that supposedly stands for families, yet it is happy to support a policy that will make it very difficult for families who are working in small business. Really, this is pure ideology; that is all this is about. This parliament can see through it, the South Australian people can see through it, and really it is time for the Marshall government to go back to the drawing board and to come up with some ideas, because this is a complete joke.

25 August 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the announcement from the NSW government that they will waive stamp duty and provide rebates on electric vehicles;
2. Notes that Australian state governments were warned a road user tax on clean cars introduced without other support for the technology could discourage their uptake and impede greenhouse gas cuts;
3. Further notes this advice was received before South Australia and Victoria announced plans to introduce a charge on driving electric vehicles;
4. Recognises that the flawed Victorian approach to implementing a tax on electric vehicles has been described by 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai and policy    experts the Electric Vehicle Council and The Australia Institute, as 'the worst electric vehicle policy in the world'; and
5. 5. Calls on the Marshall Government to support electric vehicles in South Australia by instead offering real incentives to increase the uptake of electric vehicles to combat climate change.

Right now, governments around the world are seeing the benefits of making electric vehicles cheaper by encouraging their uptake. The UK government recently announced that it would be banning the sale of petrol cars by 2030—banning their sale—and the Greens Labor government in the ACT is even offering electric car buyers free registration and $15,000 loans to encourage uptake.

With transport emissions currently sitting at around 20 per cent to 25 per cent of total emissions in Australia, we need to do what we can to support electric vehicles and to create the jobs that would flow here in our state. Offering incentives to increase the uptake of electric vehicles is essential if we are serious about combating climate change.

That is why the Greens continue to oppose the Liberal government's electric vehicle tax. This is a tax that will make our state an international pariah when it comes to fighting climate change, and this is a tax that will expose our state to international condemnation and ridicule. The future of cars is electric mobility, alternative fuels and public transport and it is time for the state government to recognise that reality and to actually invest, not penalise people who are doing the right thing.

Investment in truly innovative car manufacturing in Australia would see a shift towards electric cars instead of paying companies to make less efficient six-cylinder petrol cars. When you consider that the electric and sustainable car industry is set to be worth $1,200 billion globally by 2027, proper government support could help Australia play a really key role and, in particular, obviously assist us in South Australia. Of course, the federal government are dragging their heels. We know this federal government is useless in virtually every regard, but South Australia needs to step up and position itself as a world leader.

South Australia should be showing some leadership here. We have huge skills and experience in our state manufacturing industries and we need to be looking at what we can do to harness them. That is why it is absolutely ludicrous that this government, in last month's budget, confirmed that it is going to be proceeding with this standalone tax on electric vehicles—a bill that is coming at a time of climate crisis when transport is the fastest growing source of emissions in South Australia and when South Australia and Australia are lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to our uptake of electric vehicles.

What on earth are the Liberals thinking? What on earth is this Marshall government thinking when it comes to its absurd electric vehicle tax? Instead of penalising those who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, the government should be taking steps to make electric vehicles more accessible to more people. Let's expand the use of electric vehicles in our community. EVs are no longer seen as an expensive vehicle that is out of the reach of most people, but to ensure that trend continues we need a government to actually show leadership and play their role in taking on the climate crisis.

There are lots of examples of what they could be doing here. We can look at what has happened interstate where there are interest-free loans of two years or free registration. These are the sorts of things that could be done to try to encourage the uptake of electric cars. Once you remove some of those obstacles, the running costs are significantly cheaper than diesel vehicles. A recent comparison of four ACT government vehicles—two EVs, two petrol—showed that the EVs saved about $1,800 per vehicle in running and maintenance costs over an 18-month period. That is significant.

Research from the Australia Institute back in 2019 showed that South Australians strongly support electric vehicles and they want governments at all levels to implement policies that encourage their use. That same report found that 70 per cent of people want the government to build a network of charging stations for electric cars, two-thirds want to see the luxury car tax removed from imported electric vehicles and more than half want to see the government offering loans for electric cars. When you consider that Tesla have indicated interest in building cars right here in South Australia, it is absurd that the government are putting up more barriers to increasing the uptake of electric vehicles.

In May of this year, the Victorian government passed legislation, which will be effective from 1 July 2021, which will require road users driving electric vehicles to pay 2.5¢ per kilometre driven. This equates to around $375 annually, based on the national average of 15,000 kilometres per year. These laws also place a cost on plug-in hybrid vehicle owners to pay 2¢ per kilometre driven. That equates to $300 for every 15,000 kilometres.

Owners of these vehicles will be required to submit vehicle odometer readings and face vehicle registration suspension for noncompliance. Hybrid cars that are not able to be charged externally are exempt from this tax. The Victorian government explained that, as EV owners do not pay the national fuel excise of 42.7¢ per litre, this is the way of that government recouping costs they claim are associated with road upkeep.

The question remains, why on earth is South Australia following the flawed Victorian approach to implementing a tax on electric vehicles such as this when 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai and policy experts the Electric Vehicle Council and The Australia Institute, have called it the worst electric vehicle policy in the world? The worst electric vehicle policy in the world is being exported from Victoria and brought over to South Australia.

Prominent signatories of the open letter against the tax include Hyundai, Volkswagen, Uber, JET Charge, the Electric Vehicle Council, Solar Citizens, Environment Victoria, Doctors for the Environment Australia and The Australia Institute. Instead of looking to the absurd approach that has been taken in Victoria, why has the state Liberal government not considered the New South Wales approach, which properly supports the electric vehicle industry and delays the introduction of any EV tax until 2027? Taxing EV drivers for not burning petrol is like taxing non-smokers for not smoking. It is a laughable proposition. It is an example of failed leadership from this Marshall Liberal government.

Quite frankly, I think the community expects a level of inaction and incompetence in Canberra because we know we have a Prime Minister who loves to kiss pieces of coal and does not care about the climate crisis, but they expect better from the South Australian Liberal government. This really is an appalling lack of leadership. It is an irresponsible decision at a time when real action on climate change is essential. We need to shift our focus to 21^st century technologies. We need to utilise manufacturing skills that exist in our state by building a world-leading electric car industry that will get our state economy back on track, so really it is time for the Liberals to change course.

23 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the Marshall government's budget and the failure of that budget to deal with the climate crisis and to deal with growing inequality in our state. Looking at this budget, one of the key questions that comes to mind is: where is the support for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community? Where is the investment in social housing; where is the investment in new public housing?

This government has committed $662 million to an investment in the extension of the Adelaide Convention Centre, and guess how much they have invested in new social housing during this budget. Can you guess? Well, nothing! The answer of course is nothing—a big fat zero. The government has made much of its focus on affordable housing for homebuyers, but that will not assist those who are excluded from the housing market, particularly when one considers that their definition of affordable housing is well beyond the reach of most South Australians.

The government is also giving away $10.7 million in support and compensation to landlords who were impacted by the government's 2021 decision to close a loophole, allowing them to minimise their tax. So why on earth are we giving away more and more taxpayer funds to subsidise landlords? They are selling off $80 million of public land and they will be reducing government assets, and these assets could have been used for social housing or other social purposes.

This government makes much of its environmental credentials. Flicking through the budget I expected to see climate change being referenced. I ask you how many times was climate change referenced in the honourable Treasurer's speech? How many times is it referenced in the budget document, given that it is one of the key crises we face as a state? Again, the answer is simple: zero—it was not mentioned at all. It did not even warrant a mention from the Liberals in terms of setting out their economic plan for South Australia.

Really, that is not that surprising when one considers the absurd approach that they have taken to the electric vehicle industry. I was gobsmacked to see that they have revived their toxic policy to place a tax on electric vehicles. This is a policy that has been condemned internationally, it has been absolutely panned by global automotive manufacturers and industry experts. In fact, the policy has been described as the world's worst electric vehicle policy, and it is being rolled out right here in South Australia under the watch of the Liberal government.

The Liberals should be doing a U-turn here. They should be doing a U-turn, dumping this ridiculous tax and instead focusing on what they can be doing to encourage electric car manufacturing in South Australia and to encourage electric car purchasing in South Australia. Why not invest in that industry? Why not waive the stamp duty for these vehicles to make it more attractive for people to buy electric cars?

Victoria has made itself a complete laughing stock by introducing an EV tax earlier this year, and now South Australia is moving into the same territory. What a disgrace that is. Why on earth is the Liberal government trashing South Australia's clean and green reputation in this way?

This year, the world has woken up to the climate emergency. As I said, climate is not even mentioned in the Treasurer's speech. We also need to have a vision for dealing with the loss of trees in this budget. We used to have a vision for a million trees. Now we have a vision for tens of thousands of trees. The loss of trees is decimating Adelaide and destroying our natural environment. Indeed, there were 75,000 trees cut down over the last year.

To conclude, the Treasurer has talked a lot about his focus on young people, but we cannot rely on the pandemic grounding young people in South Australia. Perhaps if they want to be serious about attracting young people to South Australia, the Liberals could come up with some ideas for long-term jobs. Again, there is nothing for that in this budget.

8 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Treasurer on the topic of SkyCity Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, it came to light that Australia's financial regulator, AUSTRAC, had launched an investigation into potential serious noncompliance by SkyCity Adelaide with anti-money laundering and counterterror financial rules. Seven years ago, SkyCity Adelaide signed an agreement with the state government to vary the approved licensing agreement to allow for the massive expansion of its operations that we currently see, which included a requirement to make an up-front payment of $20 million to the SA government when the agreement became binding.

My question to the Treasurer is: in light of the potential serious noncompliance of SkyCity Adelaide with anti-money laundering and counterterror financing rules, is the government concerned about the source of the $20 million up-front payment that was made seven years ago?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): That question is probably more appropriately addressed to the Leader of the Opposition in the Labor Party because, as I'm sure the member knows, sadly, seven years ago we were languishing in opposition—a long history of 16 years of being in opposition.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Hunter, the Hon. Mr Maher and former treasurers would be people who subscribed to those particular arrangements with the Casino, so I think the question is probably best directed to them in relation to the detail of that particular arrangement or deal to which the honourable member refers.

In relation to the overriding important aspect to the member's question, that is, that there have clearly been serious claims made—not claims, I should say—there is now an indication that AUSTRAC, which is the appropriate agency with responsibility for investigating anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing breaches, is conducting an investigation into aspects of SkyCity's operations, and I know that other honourable members have raised this issue before.

Certainly, from the state's viewpoint, the commissioner for business and consumer affairs has made it clear that he has now put his review on hold after discussions with AUSTRAC on the basis that they are the appropriate agency with the appropriate capacity, because these are obviously quite complex investigations that AUSTRAC has the capacity to monitor.

The commissioner's view is that they are the appropriate agency to continue and finalise those investigations and then, ultimately, to report on them. Until the commissioner sees a final report, he has decided, after discussion with AUSTRAC, to put his review on hold until AUSTRAC have completed their negotiations.

Coming back to the issue of that deal seven years ago, I can't offer any more detail because I had no direct knowledge of the discussions.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms has a supplementary.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Noting the Treasurer's response, will the Treasurer be making inquiries to satisfy this parliament that the relevant rules were complied with by SkyCity Adelaide and, in particular, to ensure that no laundered money was involved with that payment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): I can certainly seek advice from those who were around seven years ago—those who had the responsibility for monitoring whatever arrangement was entered into. That would obviously be the commissioner, potentially. I will seek advice and bring back any answer that they might be able to provide.

In relation to the source of any money that was paid under the former Labor government, as to whether that was laundered money or not, I'm not sure. I'm sure the commissioner is not in a position to be able to answer that. I think what he's saying is that the appropriate agency to continue the investigation into this is AUSTRAC. They have the capacity to do it. I think they have listed two specific time periods. I think one of them was under the former government and one might have been in the first year of the current government that they were investigating in relation to SkyCity's operations.

I don't think the time periods they referred to go back seven years; that is, the nature of their investigation. I don't know whether that's because they have looked at it and don't believe there were issues of concern at that particular time, which might be possible, or whether there is some other restriction. I can certainly seek to ascertain as to whether there is any restriction on what AUSTRAC can do.

My broad understanding is there is not; that is, if they had concerns about a period of seven years ago when this deal was done with the former Labor government, I don't believe they are restricted from investigating that, but I can certainly take advice on that. Maybe the Hon. Mr Hunter or the Hon. Mr Maher might be able to throw some light on the arrangements that occurred at that particular time.