LexAir, an excellent post and convincing argument.
Where there is no type-specific simulator available locally it would be great if CASA mandated the use of a generic-type device for complex types e.g. any turboprop up to 5700 kg.
However, while these things are great for experiencing engine-out situations and practising instrument flight, the ones I have played with fall down in that they can not possibly replicate switch and control positions for multiple types and neither can they fully replicate the effect of various systems failures across multiple types. This is where you will have difficulty with old mates at CASA. Which is unfortunate, as no one who uses the real aircraft for training ever pulls total electrical or hydraulic or pressurization failures in flight and never engine failures at max gross weight in limiting ambient conditions. And neither should they!
The solution of course is - in addition to a few hours every year in the generic device - to require annual or biennial recurrent ground school on each complex type flown, augmented by a few hours in the cockpit (safely on the ground) going through various failure scenarios with a type specialist check pilot.
Operators will snivel at the downtime and cost. Pilots will snivel at the encroachment on their beer drinking time (because the typical GA operator won't pay them for such frivolous activity as TRAINING). GA is its own worst enemy.