Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking today in my capacity as assistant minister for charities about schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026. It is a measure which removes the $2 threshold for deductions of gifts or contributions. This threshold has a long and strange history. It goes back to 1915, when a minimum income tax deduction for giving was introduced. It was at that time relatively high—five pounds for donations to the war effort and 20 pounds for other charitable donations. In 2022 dollars, those figures are $578 and $2,313, respectively. In 1927, the threshold was reduced to one pound, which is $100 in today's money, and it hasn't changed in nominal terms since then. In 1966, of course, one pound became $2, and the $2 deduction threshold remained. But even in 1966 it was worth $30 in today's money, and today, of course, it has been eroded.

Entities with deductible gift recipient status are not required to provide receipts for donations, which means that there is a challenge for people who are claiming small-threshold donations. The Future foundations for giving report from the Productivity Commission notes that there have been past recommendations. The Henry tax review thought the threshold should be taken up from $2 to $25, and the Not-for-profit Sector Tax Concession Working Group recommended removing it for simplicity, as did the Industry Commission report in 1995. Consultations by the Productivity Commission produced varied responses, with many supporting the removal of the $2 donation threshold.

One of the things that we have seen, however, is a growth in round-up donations. Round up donations are a simple way in which people can support a cause that they care about through providing spare change to support that cause. Woolworths allowed customers at the till to round up for charity and, in a single month, raised $770,000 for Foodbank. Myer often partners with local community organisations such as The Family Co, an organisation which helps people escape family violence. Some platforms are set up to encourage round-up for charity. Rounda is a microdonation app that lets you choose your charity and securely link cards to contribute. The difference allows users to automatically donate change from everyday purchases and includes a 'round-up for change' approach. GoGive is a tool that charities can add to their websites, allowing supporters to set up round-up deductions. ING's Everyday Round Up allows customers to round up purchases to the nearest $1 or $5, with the amount going to charity.

The challenge at the moment, though, is that round-up for charity isn't tax deductible, even though, over the course of a year, people may find themselves giving quite a considerable amount to charity. That's the advantage of what the government is doing today. Organisations that consolidate somebody's giving would be able to produce an end-of-year tax-deductible statement which would allow people to claim all of those 19c, 37c and 57c donations they'd made through the course of the year, which might, by the end of the year, add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. By encouraging microdonations, we're helping to achieve the government's goal of making it easier to give. My three principles for giving are that we need to have evidence, we need to have enthusiasm and we need to make it easy to donate, and this is one way, alongside simplifying donations through workplace giving and simplifying bequests, that the government is supporting the charity sector. It is a recommendation of the Productivity Commission's Future foundations for giving report that the government remove the $2 threshold for tax-deductible donations to entities with deductible gift recipient status, and this will help form part of the government's response to that report and to the blueprint report.

We have set a goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030, not because we believe government should step back but because we believe that many of Australia's biggest challenges can only be dealt with through the collaboration of the government and the community sector working together. We've put in place a host of positive reforms to support charities: ensuring that we don't have gag clauses and that we celebrate the role of charities in public advocacy; creating a new community charity category; streamlining the deductible gift recipient system by returning four key categories to the tax office; putting in place a charities commissioner widely respected across the sector and an expanded and more representative ACNC Advisory Board; and lifting distributions from giving funds to six per cent to get more philanthropic funds to existing charities sooner. This government is a fast friend to charities, and we will continue to support the charity sector and the important work that they do to build social capital and build a stronger and more connected Australian community.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tax incentives for research and development activities are designed to back businesses to test new ideas and to innovate. These concessions encourage investment, help Australian companies to compete internationally and foster the kind of innovation that drives much-needed productivity growth throughout our economy. At their best, R&D incentives support breakthroughs—in medicine, technology and advanced manufacturing—that can improve lives and strengthen our national capacity. As a medical researcher, I know the value of research and development, particularly R&D that improves the health and wellbeing of all Australians. That's what research and development should do, but supporting innovation should never be confused with subsidising harm. Taxpayer dollars should not ever be used to promote industries or activities that exacerbate addiction, create public harm and pose serious health risks.

The Australian Taxation Office's R&D tax incentive transparency report 2021-22, published in October 2024, revealed the scale of R&D support received by an industry whose products and services cause significant harm—the gambling industry. In 2021-2022, slot machine makers Aristocrat and Ainsworth claimed $22 million and $15 million in R&D expenses, respectively. PointsBet, BetTube and Betting Technologies Australia all claimed more than $1 million, and Tabcorp claimed nearly $40 million. In 2022-2023, that grew to nearly $44 million. So, under our R&D tax incentives, these predatory gambling companies are being permitted—encouraged, even—to deduct at least 38.5c for every dollar that they spend on eligible activities. That's a pretty substantial incentive.

In a cost-of-living crisis, with Australia's gross debt at about $1 trillion, we have to ask ourselves why the government is subsidising predatory industries which are causing harm to Australians. Why are we, as a country, supporting the gambling industry to develop ever more sophisticated tactics to target our young people and to cause them harm through more harmful products and more effective ways to keep people addicted to gambling? Because that's what R&D in the gambling industry aims to do. It aims to increase engagement, to increase losses and, as a direct result, to increase harm.

This is why, in the 2024-2025 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the government announced that activities relating to gambling and to tobacco would be excluded from R&D tax incentive eligibility after 1 July 2025. Schedule 4 of this bill delivers on that commitment. Specifically, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to exclude activities related to gambling services, gambling and gambling-like practices and activities related to tobacco, nicotine products and vaping goods. That exclusion extends also to nicotine products to capture new and emerging nicotine devices. However, the legislation still provides for a narrow exemption. Where activities are solely for the purpose of harm reduction, such as reducing addiction, these activities remain eligible to receive support. It is my position that this exemption should be removed.

There's no reason why taxpayers should be subsidising research and development that exacerbates serious health risks, addiction and associated harms. In developing these reforms, the Treasurer himself conceded that it is problematic that gambling companies are still receiving these incentives. That is a pretty significant admission from a government which has, for far too long, looked the other way when it comes to this country's addiction to gambling.

If we are acknowledging the harm caused by gambling, and we are legislating the removal of subsidies to the industry, why is the government still refusing to act on gambling advertising? Advertising works to normalise gambling behaviour. It is constant, it is pervasive and it is designed to influence. Every TV ad, every online promotion and every push notification from a betting app on a young person's phone reinforces the harm that this legislation purports to seek to reduce. The public health evidence is clear. Gambling advertising increases participation. Gambling advertising encourages risk-taking. Gambling advertising normalises betting as entertainment, particularly for young Australians. If the government is actually serious about coherent evidence based reform, it shouldn't be stopping at R&D subsidies. It should urgently confront the harms of gambling head-on. Not doing so is virtue-signalling without substance—words without weight from the Albanese government.

The gambling industry has long had a powerful lobbying influence in Australia. It seeks to shape policy and it seeks to protect its profits. Its reach extends into political donations, sponsorships and lobbying activity—tools that continue to influence government decision-making at the very highest levels. Gambling related industries have made more than $80 million in political donations over the last two decades alone. In 2023-24, gambling companies donated $1.5 million to political parties. Most of that went to the Australian Labor Party. It's been more than a thousand days now since the Murphy report into gambling harm was released, and the government is still to act, still to adopt even one of the report's 31 recommendations. If anyone is wondering why, let me be clear: the influence of the gambling industry over the government is the reason. Gambling is not just a public health issue; it's a deeply entrenched political lobbying issue.

So, while I support this legislation, this is what the government should do: the government should immediately ensure that all regulatory loopholes open to the predatory gambling industry are firmly and immediately closed; the government should act immediately to address the profound health and financial harms caused by the toxic gambling industry by demonstrating, through its legislative actions, that gambling is a public health crisis that Australians can no longer afford; and the government should immediately implement the 31 reforms recommended by the Murphy report into gambling harm, starting with its cornerstone proposal for a comprehensive phased ban on all online gambling advertising.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is about productivity—not productivity as a slogan but productivity as Australians experience it every day in how easy it is to comply with the tax system, to run a small business, to support a local charity or to innovate and invest for the future. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 does not pretend to be a single sweeping reform. Indeed, it does something far more important than that. It tackles the everyday frictions that quietly hold our economy back. That is how productivity is built: step by step, across the system. Productivity doesn't turn around because of one announcement or one big reform. It improves when government makes sensible decisions that save people time and effort, when it removes friction from the system and when it focuses on making things work better in practice, not just in theory.

When Labor came to government in 2022, Australia's productivity growth had stalled. Under those opposite and their nearly 10 years of economic vandalism, wages stagnated, investment slowed—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member deserves to be heard in silence.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and complexity crept into too many of the systems Australians rely on. This Labor government was elected with a mandate to turn that around. As the Treasurer has said, productivity is too often treated as a cold or technical concept, when in reality it's 'the best way of making people better off over the long-term, creating more opportunities and making our economy and our society more dynamic'. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is far from headline grabbing, but it does the job of significantly improving our economy.

Schedule 1 seeks to remove the $2 minimum threshold for tax-deductible donations. Two dollars doesn't sound like much—in fact, a cup of coffee and a chocolate bar cost more. But, in practice, it reflects a very modern understanding of how Australians give. The $2 threshold has been in place since 1927. It was designed for a time when donations were made in coins, recorded by hand and processed manually. That world no longer exists.

In my community, the changes in schedule 1 will have a big impact. At local sporting clubs, community festivals and charity fundraisers, people increasingly give in small amounts. They round up at the checkout. They tap their phone. They donate $1 at a time, regularly and willingly. These are not insignificant contributions. Over time, they add up. But, under current law, they are treated as if they don't matter. This reform fixes that. By removing the $2 threshold. We are recognising that every contribution counts. We are encouraging microgiving. We are supporting innovation in fundraising, including digital platforms and round-up donation systems, and we are making it easier for Australians to support the causes they care about. This helps with productivity because the not-for-profit sector is a productive part of our economy. It delivers social outcomes efficiently, it mobilises private capital for public good, and it strengthens the social fabric that underpins economic participation.

This reform is also a part of the government's broader goal of doubling philanthropic giving by 2030. It builds on the work already done to streamline the deductible gift recipient system to create new community charity categories and to strengthen the regulatory framework that supports trust and transparency in the sector. This is sensible reform. It is modern, and it reflects how Australians actually live and give today. Much of the work done by charities and community organisations depends on small donations made regularly by ordinary Australians. Making it easier for people to give supports the organisations that do so much of the heavy lifting in our communities.

Schedule 2 focuses more on tax administration, specifically for closely held trusts. Again, this is practical reform. Under the current system, trustees must report beneficiary tax file numbers on a separate form, in addition to the trust tax return. That duplication is creating unnecessary compliance costs, and not to mention it increases the risk of error, simply adding complexity for trustees, beneficiaries and their agents. Schedule 2 aims to fix this. It allows beneficiary TFNs to be reported at the same time as the trust tax return is lodged, where the beneficiary has already provided that information. That's one form instead of two. That's one process that isn't weighed down by duplication. That's exactly the kind of change that Aussie businesses are asking for. They aren't asking for less integrity, just less red tape.

Throughout Australia, there are thousands of small-business owners and family enterprises who use these trust structures. They are not multinational corporations with teams of accountants; they are locals trying to get on with the job. They are not looking for loopholes; they are just looking for clarity. They want to spend less time navigating the forms and spend more time growing their business and employing more people, all the while contributing to our economy. This Labor government is backing them in with this reform because we know that by helping businesses we are strengthening the tax system at the same time.

Schedule 3 is a little bit more broad in nature. It deals with minor and technical amendments across Treasury legislation. No matter how small they are, they are still essential. Good economic management requires legislation that is clear, coherent and fit for purpose in a modern economy. Over time, drafting errors emerge, unintended consequences arise and language becomes outdated. If we were to leave these unaddressed, these issues would then go on to undermine confidence in the system. That is why successive governments have supported regular technical amendment processes. They are about care and maintenance. They ensure the law works as it was intended, and they reduce uncertainty for those who rely on it. This schedule continues that work—the work of so many governments before us and no doubt those in the future. It's quiet, responsible work and in the public interest.

Schedule 4 addresses eligibility for the research and development tax incentive. The R&D tax incentive is an important program. It supports innovation, it encourages investment, and it helps Australian businesses develop new products and technologies, but, like any public program, it must be well targeted. This schedule seeks to exclude tobacco and gambling related activities from eligibility for the incentive. These industries are associated with significant health and social harms. Taxpayers should not be subsidising research and development that entrenches addiction or undermines the long-term wellbeing of our fellow Australians.

This schedule is about aligning innovation with national priorities. Importantly, the exclusion is carefully designed, because research that is undertaken solely for harm minimisation, such as helping people quit smoking or gambling, remains eligible. This is the right balance. We are ensuring public support is directed towards innovation that builds Australia's future, not activities that work against it. Once again, this is what responsible economic stewardship looks like. Taken together, these measures reflect Labor's broader economic agenda, an agenda focused on productivity, participation and fairness that recognises that strong public finances and a strong social fabric go hand in hand.

As the Assistant Treasurer has noted, productivity growth does not come from slogans; it comes from systems that work, from regulation that is proportionate and from policy settings that reward effort and innovation. This bill sits alongside the government's wider economic reforms: tax cuts for every taxpayer, the thousand-dollar deduction to simplify tax returns, stronger integrity measures to ensure multinational corporations are paying their fair share, and reforms to ensure Australians receive a fair return from our natural resources. This is a coherent agenda, not a collection of one-off measures.

In my community, the impact of Labor's measured and responsible economic management is clear. It shows up when local charities can raise funds more easily, when small businesses spend less time on paperwork, when investment is directed towards industries that create long-term good jobs, and when Australians feel the system is fair and works for them. Labor's approach supports this.

Productivity is ultimately about how we use our collective resources—time, capital, talent. When we reduce unnecessary complexity, we free those resources up. When we align incentives with long-term outcomes, we invest more wisely. And when we make it easier for Australians to participate, whether as workers, donors or innovators, we strengthen the economy as a whole. This is the fundamental difference between this Labor government and those opposite.

This bill is what good economic management looks like. Labor has never believed that productivity comes from making life harder for working people. It comes from building systems that are fair, straightforward and easy to deal with. When people trust the system and can navigate it more easily, the whole economy works better. We've seen the alternative—the belief in a trickle-down economy—that far too often ends up leaving people to fend for themselves. But for Labor, our economic mission is simple: to build an economy that rewards work, values contribution and leaves no-one behind, an economy that works not just on a spreadsheet but in working people's lives. I commend the bill.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's wonderful to be speaking on this legislation, which we are not opposing, but I say so in the context that it's always amusing to hear Labor members of parliament get up and speak about the relevance of legislation to their electorate, while they repeat the same talking points that every other Labor member of parliament repeats, but it rarely operates in reality. We just heard about how productivity has been tickety boo under this government, which is why the Treasurer called a crisis conference on productivity and a roundtable to bring together Australia's leading business minds, plus the ACTU, to come up with a solution to the productivity crisis that apparently doesn't exist because productivity is tickety boo.

We're told about how, under the Albanese government, small businesses have never done it better and how everything's tickety boo with them too. It's not really what the data shows. In fact, a paper by e61 Institute a couple of weeks ago showed a long-term decline in the number of self-employed and small-business people, including people who have small businesses who employ others. We've seen this cascading decline over time, but it's been particularly bad under the Albanese government, sufficient that you literally now have record small-business insolvencies. That doesn't say to me that things are tickety boo under the Albanese government for small business. In fact, yesterday was, I think, one of the most challenging days for small business in this country's history. In addition to the challenges of the Iran conflict and the impact that's having on supply chain and prices, not just in the context of fuels but also in accessing other goods and services in the economy where prices continue to rise, which is putting huge pressure on small businesses—large businesses have the logistics and capacity to be able to adjust around that, but that doesn't mean they don't carry those costs, too—we had the Reserve Bank turn around and say, 'Well, business can basically now absorb all the costs they've been passing on to consumers.'

We're all happy that we've seen a ban on surcharging, but let's just remind ourselves that someone picks up the bill and that supermarkets get a disproportionate favour in comparison to small businesses under this plan. Supermarkets, as an example—large retailers, supermarkets particularly—do things on scale, so they have preferential terms with banking. They get very favourable terms in comparison to small businesses, who have to absorb all the costs. So, against a global backdrop of challenges and a domestic backdrop of small business insolvencies, we now have a situation where businesses are being told they need to absorb more costs.

Then, on top of that, we had the Fair Work Commission say yesterday that they're going to, over the next four years, increase the wages of 18- to 20-year-olds by 42 per cent. I have no doubt that everyone who's a beneficiary of that is happy about that; that's not in contest. But there's someone who has to pick up the bill associated with that, and that is, of course, small businesses. So I imagine a lot of them are looking at yesterday—between the global context and rising prices, the domestic context and record insolvencies, and the challenges of the lowest consumer confidence on record plus increased costs for surcharging, skills and labour—and going, 'This is pretty tough.'

But clearly that's falling on deaf ears in at least some of the corridors of Canberra, because I was just told by the member for Maribyrnong that everything's tickety-boo. I actually think we have a responsibility in this parliament to speak plainly and honestly about the state of challenges, particularly in times of crisis, and we're in a time of crisis. Do you remember, Member for Mitchell, a few weeks ago when the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said that there was no problem and that everybody in the House of Representatives was overegging the situation about fuel? Three days later he went, 'Okay, yes, we're in a national crisis.' I don't say that with any glee. That is the state of denial that has permeated this government. They have a denial on the fuel crisis, a denial on the productivity crisis and now a denial on the small business crisis, as well.

This is why Australians are losing faith. We need people to come in here, speak plainly and honestly about the challenges and the realities that Australians—and small businesses, in particular—are facing, and then they need to turn to the government and ask whether they're taking steps and measures to improve the situation. What we do is come up to the Federation Chamber and see the member for Maribyrnong—and I have no doubt it's in the talking points of others, as well—doing a kind of happy dance on the spot like they're Snoopy, thinking that they're the great heroes saving productivity, fuel and small business. Australians don't feel that way. Instead, they're looking at it and going: 'Well, what's next? If this is the delusion of the government that's supposed to be standing up for me, then I have lost faith in the government.' And that, of course, is where we are right now.

Now is the time where we need a government that's going to stand up and fight for the future of this country. More important than that, we need the measures to back-in Australians to be enterprising and to take command of their own destiny. We need Australians to be respected to take control of their own lives, and we need their hard work to pay off. We need a policy framework which focuses clearly on how we empower Australians to be able to back themselves—not simply to live with the consequences, slavishly, of factors outside of their control or of a government that's in a state of delusion and that doesn't understand the challenges confronting us. What we need is a government of strength, of confidence and of hope so that, by working together, we can take our nation forward. But that is not what we have.

What we've got is a government that is in a state of denial. When you look at this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026—Orwellian as it is called—it's about whether or not there are tax incentives that can be taken advantage of by tobacco and gambling companies. Let's be fair: why would a tobacco company need to take advantage of R&D investments when all of the innovation has been taken care of for them by organised crime gangs? They're the ones investing in the supply chains to profiteer out of the consequences of both the stripping of trademarks from tobacco products and the excise. Why would gambling companies need to do the same when, in practice, gambling companies are the ones that are profiteering off a febrile environment in terms of incentives? What we have is this delusional approach from government, a state of denial about the full consequences of the measures it's introduced. People are profiting, and it is all the wrong people; it's the corrupt entities.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to suspend the Federation Chamber as we don't have a quorum. The chair will be resumed when a quorum is present.

Sitting suspended from 12:45 to 12:51

(Quorum formed)

Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the strengths of our national life is the quiet, steady work done every day by charities and not-for-profits in communities right across Australia. They are there in the local service helping a family get back on its feet; in the organisation supporting someone to navigate housing, legal support or mental health care; in the volunteer-run group creating connection and belonging; and in the community organisation stepping in early to provide practical help before problems deepen. These organisations are woven into the life of our communities in ways that can be easy to overlook if we focus only on formal institutions or headline economic indicators, yet they make an enormous contribution to the strength, resilience and generosity of Australian society. They provide practical assistance, but they also build trust, dignity and a sense that people are not facing life's challenges alone. Seen in that light, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 takes on real significance. It contains a number of measures, but for me the most significant are the reforms that support charities, not-for-profits and philanthropy. If we want a more generous, connected and resilient Australia, we need a framework that makes it easier for people to give, easier for good organisations to attract support and easier for the sector to keep doing the work that it does so well.

This is an area I speak about with a deep personal connection. Before coming into this place, I spent around 20 years working across the not-for-profit sector alongside another seven years grounded in the public service, and that experience has shaped how I understand the role which charities and community organisations play in Australian life. My work in this space has taken different forms but has always been driven by a commitment to fairness, opportunity and, really importantly, community. I was most recently the CEO of the Australian Kookaburra Kids Foundation, supporting young people impacted by family mental illness. I've also led Reconciliation South Australia, and I worked for more than 13 years with the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation. Just prior to coming into this place, I also served on the board of directors for the Fundraising Institute Australia. The FIA, as the national peak body for professional fundraising, sets the standards that ensure integrity, transparency and accountability across the sector. Their training, accreditation and advocacy support thousands of fundraisers to do their work ethically and effectively, building confidence among donors and strengthening the impact of every dollar raised. I want to acknowledge their important work in this sector.

Working across these organisations gave me a close understanding of what purpose-driven leadership looks like in practice—balancing mission and management every day, stretching every dollar while keeping sight of the people behind the numbers, and building trust with communities, team members, volunteers and supporters. Charities and not-for-profits are part of how Australia works at its best. They support people in moments of vulnerability, create opportunity, advocate for fairness and strengthen social cohesion, all with remarkable creativity and commitment.

I also want to express my sincere thanks to the workers, volunteers, leaders and board members across our charity and not-for-profit sector. I say to you all: the work you do is valuable, demanding and deeply community minded. You support people through crisis, build stronger foundations long before crisis arrives, and create connection, trust and possibility. Thank you.

When we talk about productivity and the strength of the economy, we should remember that a healthy society depends on more than markets and institutions alone. It depends on participation, social trust and people being able to contribute, connect and find support when they need it. Charities and not-for-profits mobilise volunteers, attract private giving, deliver trusted local services, innovate in response to need, identify gaps early and connect government with communities and lived experience, often while working under intense pressure with very limited resources. They really do a lot of the heavy lifting. So, when systems make it easier for Australians to give, easier for charities to raise support and easier for not-for-profits to navigate the rules around them, that strengthens not only the sector itself but the broader social economy. It helps direct time, effort and resources to where they can do the most good.

In Griffith, I had the great pleasure of hosting a charity and not-for-profit roundtable last month alongside the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, the member for Fenner. The roundtable brought together representatives from dozens of organisations and around 80 participants in total, all working within Griffith. I want to sincerely thank each of those organisations for taking the time to be part of the conversation and for the work they do in our community every day. These organisations covered a wide range of sectors, including health, arts and culture, multicultural affairs, environment, legal and community services. It was a great opportunity where we talked about delivering frontline services, building sustainable funding models and working through administration, compliance and workforce pressures while continuing to meet the rising need in our community. I want to thank the assistant minister for joining me and the Griffith community for this event and for the consultative way that he has engaged in this area. His work has helped ensure that policy conversations about charities, philanthropy and civil society are informed by evidence, experience and genuine respect for this sector.

Schedule 1 of this bill is a clear example of practical support for the charity and not-for-profit sector. It removes the requirement that a gift to a deductible gift recipient must be valued at $2 or more before a taxpayer can claim a deduction. That threshold has been in place since 1927, reflecting a very different era, when issuing receipts and keeping records was a manual process and the mechanics of giving looked nothing like they do today. That world has changed, and these changes enable our laws to catch up with that reality. They treat donations equally regardless of size, support innovation in fundraising and remove a threshold that no longer reflects how Australians contribute.

It also forms part of the government's response to the Productivity Commission's Future foundations for giving review, which examined the opportunities and barriers in Australia's philanthropy system. One of the ambitions flowing from that work is to double giving by 2030, a goal that I have been a very passionate supporter of for a very long time. Reaching that goal will not come from one dramatic change alone. It will come from a series of practical reforms that make giving easier, more accessible and more suited to the way Australians live now. Removing the $2 threshold is one of those measures. It is sensible, contemporary and overdue.

There is something important in recognising the small acts of generosity. Philanthropy is sometimes spoken about in terms of large donations and major foundations, both of which I have been incredibly grateful to be on the receiving end of in charities. They can be absolutely transformational gifts. Those contributions absolutely matter, and they should be encouraged. But a strong culture of giving also depends on everyday participation and on a system that recognises how people actually give now: in the small moments woven through ordinary life. Today, charitable giving often takes place while we are in the middle of something else. It happens when the cashier at the checkout asks whether we would like to round up our groceries by 80c for a local charity. It happens when a parent is booking tickets online for a community event and sees the option to add a small donation before checking out. It happens when someone, buying a coffee, paying for school raffle tickets, registering a local fundraiser or finalising an online order, chooses to add a dollar or two to support a cause that they really care about.

These are not grand gestures. They're quick, quiet choices made in the rhythm of everyday life. But across a community, across thousands of transactions and across thousands of Australians, these choices add up to real support for organisations doing important work. By removing the $2 threshold, the law catches up with today's healthy culture of giving. It also broadens participation, reaffirming that giving is not reserved only for those with really substantial means. And in a time when many households are feeling pressure, it recognises that small contributions are still meaningful contributions.

Since coming to government, there has been a clear commitment to supporting charities and not-for-profits through practical reform. That includes streamlining the deductible gift recipient system by returning four key categories to the Australian Taxation Office. It includes creating the new community charity category to encourage more local and place based giving and broaden the pool of regular Australian donors. It includes giving the charities commissioner greater discretion to comment on compliance activity. It includes expanding the ACNC Advisory Board so it is more representative of the sector and strengthens the network of charity regulators across the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It includes lifting distributions from giving funds so more philanthropic money reaches existing deductible gift recipients sooner.

Each of these steps reflects a consistent approach to making systems easier to navigate, more responsive to the sector and better aligned with how organisations actually operate. Complexity carries a real cost. It can divert time and energy away from service delivery, slow down fundraising, create confusion for donors and administrators alike, and place additional pressures on organisations that are already managing lean budgets and growing demand. Reducing unnecessary complexity is part of building a stronger social economy. It allows charities to focus more of their time on what they do best, which is supporting people, strengthening communities and delivering meaningful change.

The broader frame for this bill is productivity, and that is worth speaking to directly. These reforms are not isolated technical fixes but part of a broader effort to lift productivity across the economy after a wasted decade of stagnation under those opposite. One of the clear lessons from that period is that excessive complexity drags down productivity. Complexity consumes time, raises compliance costs and slows down good ideas, and it affects not only businesses and investors but also communities and community organisations. Productivity growth depends on broad participation across the economy, including in the not-for-profit sector. A stronger social economy contributes to national wellbeing. It helps communities function better, helps people stay connected to support and opportunity, brings private capital into areas of social need and often delivers outcomes that are preventive as well as responsive. Removing the $2 donation threshold is one small but meaningful example of that broader principle. It encourages microgiving with digital donations, supports modern fundraising tools such as round-up systems, helps mobilise private generosity towards social outcomes, and recognises that building a more productive nation also involves building a more connected and more generous one.

This bill complements wider work the government is doing, including broader regulatory reform measures, tariff reductions and financial sector data streamlining. The common thread is simple: good systems should be fit for purpose, reflect how people and organisations operate now, reduce needless friction and support effort where it can deliver the greatest value.

That same principle is present in other sections of this bill. Schedule 2 modernises tax administration by streamlining how trustees of closely held trusts report the tax file numbers of beneficiaries so that this occurs at the same time the trust tax return is lodged. Schedule 3 makes minor and technical amendments to Treasury legislation. These kinds of changes rarely attract headlines, but they matter. Good government is not only about large reforms. Schedule 4 excludes activities related to gambling and tobacco from the research and development tax incentive from 1 July 2025. That's a sensible reform. Productivity is not just about supporting any activity that can be labelled 'research and development'; it's also about directing public support where it delivers the greatest long-term value. Tobacco- and gambling-related activities are associated with serious harm, including addiction and poorer health outcomes. Public resources should not be subsidising research and development in those areas through this program.

These changes modernise patterns of generosity, support a broader and more inclusive culture of philanthropy and back charities and not-for-profits by making it easier for Australians to give in the ways that Australians give now. They sit within a broader commitment of this government to support a stronger, more responsive and more confident sector. For the charities, not-for-profits, workers and volunteers across Griffith and across Australia, this is a practical step towards a system that better reflects and supports the work that you do.

I would just remark that we recently heard from the member for Goldstein saying that he believes—and it is encouraging that he believes—that government should stand up and fight for the future of this country and that we need a government of strength, confidence and hope. I'm really proud to say that is exactly what we have here in the Albanese Labor government. We have a government of confidence, of real heart and of commitment to ensuring that Australians can receive the assistance that they need where they need it and that we're able to have a thriving philanthropic sector in the Australian community that is supported by government to do the important work that only they can do. I give a big thank you to all of the volunteers, workers and organisations in Griffith. Thank you for everything that you do to support Australia.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australians lost $31.5 billion from gambling in 2022-23, making us the 'biggest losers' globally;

(b) the total estimated cost in Australia of smoking was estimated at $136.9 billion in 2015-16 through healthcare, ill health, premature mortality and other costs of smoking; and

(c) while the 2022-23 Australian Taxation Office Research and Development Tax Incentive Transparency Report reported no claims in relation to tobacco companies, 18 companies which identified as part of the gambling industry collectively claimed more than $101,000,000 in tax breaks through this Tax Incentive, which comprises the single largest component of government support for business research and development in Australia; and

(2) calls on the Government to completely exclude all research and development activities conducted by gambling and tobacco companies and entities such as research organisations which obtain any funding from such companies from eligibility for the Research and Development Tax Incentive because their profits result from harm caused to our community, and their research and development activities should be entirely self-funded".

I very much support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026. There are four schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 makes it easier for taxpayers to donate low-value gifts under $2 in value through, for example, supermarket round-up donations. This is a Productivity Commission recommendation. Schedule 2 provides that trustees are to report in a trust income tax return the tax file numbers of any beneficiaries with an entitlement, and it also enables the Australian Taxation Office to streamline reporting and improve accuracy—sounds very reasonable. Schedule 3 is for minor technical amendments and corrections, and schedule 4 excludes tobacco and gambling related research and development from eligibility for the Australian government's research and development tax incentive.

The research and development tax incentive represents the single largest component of government support for business research and development in Australia. It provides tax offsets to companies for eligible research and development expenditure and aims to boost research and development by encouraging investment in R&D that might not otherwise be undertaken. It fosters groundbreaking research and Australia's research and development ecosystem.

Annual report data about R&D tax incentives in entities is a source of information on companies that have claimed R&D tax incentives for each income year, and this encourages voluntary compliance with the program's requirements and raises public awareness of companies' claims against this tax incentive. The 2022-23 R&D tax incentive report, which is the most recent, is based on 30 June 2025 data. There was $16.2 billion in R&D expenditure claims for 2022-23 by almost 13,000 companies, mostly public and multinational businesses. There was a total of $8.7 billion for the multinationals. Ninety-three per cent of claimants were Australian owned. There were no claims in relation to tobacco company research and development in that 2022-23 year. However—and this is really important—the same report indicates that 18 companies which identified as part of the gambling industry collectively claimed expenditure of more than $100 million in research and development tax incentives in that year.

We know gambling costs and impacts Australians. Financially, there was a loss of over $31 billion from gambling in 2022-23, making us the biggest losers globally on a per capita basis. Managing the harms caused by gambling costs Australians billions of dollars each year, and, of course, those billions of dollars don't equate to lives lost. In Victoria alone, gambling reportedly cost $14.1 billion in 2023 through financial impacts, emotional and psychological harm including depression and suicide, lost productivity, crime, relationship and family impacts including domestic violence, and other costs.

I don't believe that Australian taxpayers should also be subsidising gambling companies through tax incentives. In 2022-23 the following companies were reported to have claimed the following expenditure for research and development activities under the research and development tax incentive: Tabcorp Holdings, $43 million; Aristocrat Leisure, almost $19 million; the Lottery Corporation Ltd, over $10 million; Unibet Australia, over $9 million; and Ainsworth Games Technology, almost $8 million. And there are many, many more: Player Elite Pty Ltd, Betting Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, Advanced Gaming Pty Ltd, Gamurs Pty Ltd, BetTube Corporation Ltd, BetCloud Pty Ltd and PointsBet Holding Ltd. I've mentioned Ainsworth and Unibet Australia—the list goes on.

Schedule 4 of this bill will exclude research and development activities by gambling and tobacco companies from eligibility—unless those activities are solely for the purpose of harm minimisation. Well, I still think that's a free ride and a tax incentive for gambling and tobacco. I do commend the minister for his work on this bill, and research should not be used to exacerbate serious health risks, addiction and associated problems. As I said, I support this bill—it's a good start—but I don't believe that it is appropriate for the Australian taxpayer to in any way subsidise any research and development by gambling or tobacco entities. They already cost our community so much; they already make such obscene profits.

Theoretically, a tobacco and gambling company could, under this legislation, undertake research related to harm minimisation. But there would be no obligation for the company to then apply the findings of that research to actually benefit the community. Rather, such research findings may help companies or sectors avoid detriment to their business models through how they choose to implement any purported harm minimisation research outcomes. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

My second reading amendment, therefore, calls on the government to exclude all research and development activities conducted by gambling and tax companies from eligibility for the research and development tax incentive. It's very, very simple; it's a carve-out. It recognises that gambling harm and harm from tobacco are effectively the same harm to Australian people. The profits made by these companies result from harm caused to our community, and their research and development activities should be entirely self-funded.

I also call on the government to exclude from eligibility entities such as research organisations which obtain part or all of their funding from tobacco and gambling companies. Researchers in gambling harm research should not accept money from the gambling industry so that no actual bias influences their research and no perceived bias lessens the value of their research.

I've been made aware, by gambling harm lived experience experts known as GHLEE, of a $20 million budget submission from OurFutures institute seeking funding to deliver a gambling prevention education program aimed at 15- to-20-year-olds. GHLEE have expressed concerns regarding the proposed program, and it's also been covered in some detail by the Guardian Australia.

The OurFutures institute budget submission states that it's gambling education program would be led by experienced leaders, including University of Sydney Centre of Excellence in Gambling Research leader Professor Sally Gainsbury. It must be noted that Professor Sally Gainsbury receives direct and indirect funding from the gambling industry, and on the university's website she refers to the Centre of Excellence in Gambling Research as an 'unprecedented collaboration with gambling operators'. Honestly, I don't understand how ethically this university could get into bed with the gambling industry. I seriously don't get it.

Further, the university states that the centre's creation was 'made possible through $600,000 funding from the International Centre for Responsible Gambling', whose own website states that its research program is funded primarily by companies involved in the gambling industry. I and many others would be gravely concerned to see any tax breaks extended to any entities funded by the gambling interests. I and many others will be watching the May federal budget carefully for this budget bid. I plead with the Treasurer: do not provide this $20 million. The gall to even seek that funding is just extraordinary.

Now is a timely opportunity to talk about the Murphy report delays. It's been more than a thousand days since the Murphy report on the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, You win some, you lose more, was handed down. The report's unanimous bipartisan recommendations to reduce harm caused by gambling online include a gambling ad ban; a minister for reducing gambling harm, not a minister that's juggling the current conflicts of communications and sport; and a national regulator with a mission to reduce gambling. For a thousand days this government has really done very little to address the impacts of gambling—poor mental health; financial hardship; crimes such as domestic violence, elder abuse and stealing; homelessness; and even suicide. The government has not responded. There was a ban on credit cards for online gambling, which was a recommendation of a separate 2021 inquiry, but they have not acted on this Murphy report.

My second reading amendment actually looks to do some good. It looks to stem some of the taxpayer funding—because it's us as taxpayers that would be funding the tax breaks for the gambling industries. It's money that doesn't come into the general pool, because it's going back into the pockets of the gambling industry. So I have moved my second reading amendment, and I commend my amendment to the House. It is my great hope that in the other place the government seeks to amend this bill to make what is a good bill an even better bill. The government needs to show courage and stop predatory gambling companies from causing Australian gambling harm, and pay the price to try and prevent, manage and cure those harms. I support this bill and my amendment.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment moved by the eminent member for Mayo and reserve my right to speak.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 gives me an opportunity to talk about the importance of charities in a working-class community like Forde, like the communities that we on this side of the House represent particularly. There are two groups of individuals I really want to give a shout out to. The first is Charlie and Jenny Bennett. They met each other at the age of 19, 40 years ago—I think that probably gives away their age! Four years before they met, Jenny was diagnosed with MS. It must have been a devastating diagnosis for a little girl to get. But that didn't get in the way for them, as it does not get in the way for many MS sufferers, who just get on with it, and they built a life together and contributed massively to their community. But, in 2013, Charlie had to leave work to become a full-time carer for Jenny.

I've got to say that Charlie is that sort of guy. I actually can't remember when I met him. He's just always been there, and he's always been an absolute inspiration to me. In those years that he's been looking after and caring for Jenny, it hasn't stopped him from participating fully in the community. In fact, he rides in the MS Brissie to the Bay fundraising ride every year and has now fundraised a cumulative total of about $100,000. This is one absolute legend from Logan. He's doing it again this year, and he's raised $16,384 out of an $18,000 goal. It is a phenomenal amount of money. It is truly a measure of an effort and a measure of a man and a measure of a couple that just were not going to be beaten by a debilitating disease. Something like one in four Australians live with a neurological condition, and I think something like only 66 per cent are supported through the NDIS.

There are another a couple of guys, Josh Steel and Dan, who are riding in the—I don't think I can say this word in here, but it is the S-box rally. It's an Australian colloquialism for a car that is not of a high standard. Forgive me for that allusion, but they're riding from Port Douglas down all the way to Melbourne in this dodgy VW that they've done up to raise money for cancer. Again, it's a personal story that motivates people, and Josh was motivated by his mum, who was a survivor of breast cancer. Dan is motivated by his father-in-law, who was not a survivor of prostate cancer, but they have turned tragedy into purpose. I think they've now got up to $22,780 of a $10,000 goal.

This legislation provides practical support to the government's goal of doubling that giving amount by the year 2030. As the member for Griffith talked about, it's those small little round-up donations that end up adding up to a lot of money, so this legislation is going to really supercharge the efforts which are exemplified by people like Charlie and Jenny and Josh and Dan.

The other thing that this legislation does which is notable apart from the technical, which is really the methodical and careful and deliberate way that this government goes about doing things, is make our tax system fairer, simpler and more sustainable. It is really gobsmacking that, in 2026, industries which can cause people harm are able to access research and development incentives at the same time. Again, the former government let all this happen while they brought in unfair tax cuts and then opposed our tax cuts. And so this sits within the government's broader strategy of a fairer, simpler and more sustainable tax system, a strategy which has delivered one tax cut in our first term and is going to deliver a tax cut this year and another one next year. That is on top of a broader strategy such as the LISTO, which is not an acronym which rolls readily off the tongues of our voters, but that lower income superannuation tax offset is going to mean a better retirement for 11,353 people in Forde, 7,688 of whom being women. About 68 per cent of these low-income earners are women. We can only do that because we are prioritising our tax system so that it is fair, simple and sustainable.

This government really has got on with the job of fixing up many years of neglect, underinvestment and bad management across so many realms. The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services should be congratulated for his work. People within the Labor caucus who made this happen should be congratulated for their methodical work that today recognises the hard work that people like Charlie and Jenny, Josh and Dan selflessly put into our community to make Australia a better place.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:25