Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (13:13): I contribute to debate on the Return of Proceeds of Crime (Gambling Businesses) Bill 2025. I do not think there is any member of this House who doubts that gambling can cause harm, especially when it involves the use of stolen money. The intent of the bill is understandable, and I acknowledge the desire of the member for Murray to see justice for victims. But good intentions alone do not always make for good law. The Minns Labor Government cannot support the bill because it risks duplicating existing laws and undermining the coordinated, evidence‑based reforms currently underway in New South Wales. Our approach is deliberate, expert led and focused on lasting change, particularly through the work of the Independent Panel on Gaming Reform.

It is clear that in the two years since coming to power in 2023 this Government has done more to tackle gambling harm than the previous Government did in 12 years. At the centre of the Government's reform effort is the Independent Panel on Gaming Reform—a group of experts, including industry representatives, community services and academics, tasked with overseeing the trial of cashless gaming technology and advising the Government on next steps. That trial, which ran from March to September 2024 in 14 venues across New South Wales, was the first of its kind in Australia. It was important to do a trial because, despite all good intentions, there are always unintended consequences, teething issues and problems. My understanding is that in other jurisdictions where no trial was conducted before implementing reforms, they have run into some serious issues.

The intention of the New South Wales Government was to ensure that the technology was tested effectively in a meaningful environment across a number of scenarios, and any issues worked out prior to legislation being brought forward. This will ensure we have meaningful reform to tackle gambling addiction, which can be very dangerous. The panel delivered its report to the Government in December 2024. It laid out a road map for gaming reform in this State, including recommendations around data privacy, technical standards and, importantly, how to allocate the $100 million this Government has committed to harm minimisation programs. The Government is currently reviewing those recommendations. This is a major reform package with implications for community safety, consumer protection and privacy, and so it deserves the kind of thoughtful and coordinated response that only a structured, whole‑of‑government approach can provide.

Unfortunately, the bill cuts across existing frameworks and may produce unintended legal consequences. It creates new offences for gambling businesses that already have obligations under both State criminal law and Commonwealth anti‑money laundering legislation. I recall when the first tranche of anti‑money laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation was brought in by the Commonwealth Government in the mid‑2000s. I was working in the financial services sector at the time. There were some well‑meaning laws and I think everyone supported them. But, as someone at the coalface who was tasked with implementing those reforms in a practical manner, I can say that there were issues to be worked through. There were technical complications and issues around data. The last thing I want to see is a repeat of that when it comes to cracking down on money laundering in the gambling space in this State.

For example, section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 already makes it an offence to fail to report information that might assist police in prosecuting a serious indictable offence. Section 193C of the Act deals with the handling of suspected proceeds of crime. These are strong laws, and they are already on the books. Furthermore, the bill seeks to implement parts of recommendation 22 of the You win some, you lose more report. The recommendations in that report were directed at the Federal Government. This is a matter that requires national coordination. As the report made clear, preventing the use of stolen funds in online gambling requires regulatory changes at the Commonwealth level, where many of the online providers are licensed. Another issue is that if laws are not in sync it would be very easy for people involved in this kind of nefarious activity in border regions, such as up at the Tweed or down in Albury, to simply go to the RSL club on the other side of the border and continue their activities.

Any measures need to be coordinated. We need to have every State and Territory in Australia on board to make sure that all these laws work together in sync. We also need to acknowledge some realities in the Northern Territory. There are serious questions around whether this Parliament has the legal authority to enforce the proposed law on out-of-State operators. For a variety of reasons, some gambling providers are based in Darwin and the Northern Territory, so the best way to sort this out is to get our good friends in the Albanese Government in Canberra to work through these issues.

No one denies that action is needed to prevent gambling-related harm. I live and breathe south-western Sydney. Every report I read about the amount of gambling per capita indicates that it is highest in the suburbs that I and my family and friends grew up in and live in. I have family and friends who have suffered from gambling addiction. I remember going to the pub with my mates on pay day. One of them had a gambling addiction. Someone would have lent him a few hundred bucks the fortnight before because he had blown it all on the pokies. We would go to the pub and he would be missing for a couple of hours; he would come back having blown his next pay packet and would be unable to pay the money back. I have seen the impact of gambling addiction firsthand with family and friends. Sometimes, it has ended in absolute tragedy: suicide, imprisonment, drug addiction, crime—you name it.

In no way do I stand here seeking to talk down the impacts of gambling. I am very much in favour of harm minimisation; I remember speaking to the Premier about it before I was elected. We were campaigning in Edmondson Park and had a bit of a chat about gambling reform. It is fair to say that we were on the same page: Action was needed, but it had to be measured and methodical, with no unintended consequences. When we take action, it has to be smart, coordinated and enforceable. Unfortunately, this bill does not meet that standard. The work of the independent panel, the investment in harm minimisation and our ongoing partnership with the Federal Government represent the best way to reduce harm, support victims and deliver real reform. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.