Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Malcolm Roberts

I have some questions, as I implied before. We're generally supportive, One Nation, of these superannuation modifications, except for what we see as dishonest provisions. In February's Senate estimates hearings I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia's Governor-General is supposed to be neutral—to not take political positions. This leads to many questions of the government. Firstly, Minister, how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children—mutilation of children?

This is not about people's support for Equality Australia, because that's what is essentially happening by giving it DGR—deductible gift recipient—status. This is about the law and Equality Australia's DGR status. My questions include: Why did assistant charities minister Mr Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when on three occasions the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status?

Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court's full bench, on two occasions? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group Equality Australia? Isn't this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirements of neutrality by the Governor-General?

Maria Kovacic

Senator Ghosh.

Varun Ghosh

I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but I think it's a contravention of the standing orders to cast aspersions on the motives of, or reflect disrespectfully on, the Governor-General of Australia.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Noted, thank you. Please withdraw, Senator Roberts, and refrain moving forward.

Malcolm Roberts

I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

Observing the government's blatant contradiction of the law in giving DGR status—deductible gift recipient status—to Equality Australia in defiance of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings, I ask: Does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government? Is the lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children's futile attempts to change sex? Essentially, what you're doing, Minister, by giving Equality Australia deductible gift recipient status is asking taxpayers to subsidise the mutilation of children. Why are you going against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Federal Court rulings? We want to protect superannuants—adults—but not at the sacrifice of children.

Anthony Chisholm

Thanks, Senator Roberts. My understanding, having just taken over this bill this morning, is that Senator Gallagher responded to similar statements that were put by Senator Whitten when this was last in committee stage. The government rejects the claims of Senator Roberts. All of the entities that are being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. This prior ineligibility is the precondition for a government to consider applications for a specific listing. Let me be clear: all the entities that are being provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR categories. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it has happened routinely since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides. That's what is part of this bill . There are other organisations that are recipients. It says a lot about One Nation that they are just singling out this group in particular for their political motivations.

Malcolm Roberts

():  I understand your response, Minister, but can you explain why the government is supporting a group that is a lobby group, an activist group, not a charity, as the Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled twice and as the Administrative Tribunal also ruled? Why are you supporting a lobby group, an activist group, that's harming children and is not recognised as a charity?

Anthony Chisholm

I disagree with Senator Roberts there. Contrary to false media reporting, Equality Australia is indeed a registered charity. Equality Australia has been registered as a charity under the ACNC Act since 4 January 2016. Specifically, Equality Australia has been registered as a charity with the subtype 'advancing public debate'. Advancing public debate and engaging in public advocacy is a valid charitable purpose. Equality Australia is a registered and compliant organisation, meeting the required governance standards and making a significant contribution to Australian communities.

Malcolm Roberts

With respect, Minister, you didn't answer my question. Why are you going against a Federal Court ruling on two occasions and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling?

Anthony Chisholm

I already answered that in the previous answer. The entities being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. As I said before—let me be clear—all the entities that are provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR status. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it does happen regularly and has occurred since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides.

Mehreen Faruqi

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3645 together:

(1) Clause 2, Page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 18 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Animal welfare gift deductibility expansion

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 Subsection 30-45(1) (cell at table item 4.1.6, column headed "Fund, authority or institution")

Repeal the cell, substitute:

2 Application of amendments

The amendments of item 4.1.6 of the table in subsection 30-45(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 made by this Schedule apply in relation to gifts or contributions made on or after the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this item.

These amendments broaden the definition of 'animal welfare work' to ensure that any person who donates to an animal welfare charity is able to receive the tax benefits that they should. Currently, the Income Tax Assessment Act only covers organisations who work on behalf of native wildlife or provide direct animal-care services. What this means in reality is that too many activities of animal welfare charities then become not eligible for deductable gift recipient status.

Excluded from this benefit are organisations that work on preventing animal cruelty; providing community education and disaster and crisis emergency response; advocating for improved animal welfare standards; and providing expertise and advice to governments and industry stakeholders. That is a huge, huge amount of work that charities and volunteers do to stop animal cruelty or to advocate for animals to be protected in this country. It is an atrocity for them to not have DGR status. People in this country care deeply about animals. We have seen that again and again. There has been a massive movement for decades to end the cruelty that is greyhound racing, and I do hope that that ends next month in Tasmania. But there is other animal cruelty that happens in this country, whether it be on companion animals or whether it be the live sheep export, and it is because of the work of the community and these volunteers and these charities that, finally, we are going to see an end to live sheep export. Their work needs to be supported, and they should have that DGR status.

Animal welfare charities are also consistently in the top 3 causes Australian donors support. I think a lot of them actually wouldn't know that this is going on. It is an issue that is so near and so dear to the hearts of so many people who live in this country, and it is wholly unfair that they do not receive the same benefits as others for contributing to a cause so close to their heart and a cause that is really important in protecting sentient living beings.

Independent reviews by the Productivity Commission and the Department of Social Services have actually recommended expanding tax-deductable gift recipient status to include animal welfare advocacy charities, but, at the moment, hundreds of animal rescue shelters and many others just do not receive this status. Labor have previously said that they would consider recommendations from the Productivity Commission to ensure DGR rules support the charitable purposes that most Australians support, but these recommendations were made almost two years ago, and, still, there is no action from the government.

The current laws severely limit access to major fundraising platforms, restrict donor choice and discourage the important work that addresses animal cruelty at its source. There are literally thousands of volunteers working for these charities who put their blood, sweat and tears into actually rehabilitating and supporting the animals which have had cruelty so severely dealt on them. That is just not acceptable. These people put their hearts and souls into looking after the animals that come out so scarred and so damaged from these cruel industries, like horseracing and like greyhound racing, and they still do not have the ability to get these tax deductions.

The Labor government today have a perfect opportunity to support these amendments and show that they care about animals and the really important work done by so many outstanding animal welfare organisations and the volunteers within those organisations across the country. It would be really deeply disappointing for so many of them if this did not happen today. These amendments are a critical step forward for animal welfare organisations that respond—and they do. These amendments do respond to a very long-running campaign from the animal welfare community, and they would make a massive, very significant difference to organisations who do so much to care for animals. So I do commend these amendments to the Senate, and I hope that the Labor government can support these amendments.

Long debate text truncated.