Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was talking about amendments to schedule 5 proposed by the cookers, grifters and homophobes of the far right on the other side of the chamber there. They are trying to remove Equality Australia from being a deductible gift—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: you adversely reflected on the personal characteristics of other members in the chamber.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe I referenced anyone—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to seek further advice from the Clerk.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but, if so, I withdraw. Why are they wanting to remove Equality Australia from being a deductible gift recipient? In this whole lurch to the far right, we have seen more hatred and more division from the other side, deliberately trying to hurt LGBTQI+ Australians by removing Equality Australia from being a deductible gift recipient. If they are not homophobic intentions, why are they focusing only on Equality Australia?

The bill also recognises other organisations, such as the Parenthood Project, which is a similar entity to Equality Australia but, rather than progressing the rights of LGBTQI+ people, it focuses on family and parenting policy—for example, affordable child care—where Equality Australia exists to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTQI+ people in Australia. So, again, all one can take as the motives on the other side—and, I might add, this is backed in by Senator Chandler and the far, far right of the Liberal Party—is more division and hatred towards LGBTQI+ Australians. It is really telling to me as to the motives and intentions of this amendment.

There are many other deductible gift recipients that are currently operating within these laws, and they are perfectly fine to do the things that they do, where punters can come along and make a deduction, make a donation to them and claim it on their income tax return. In the words of Equality Australia: 'There is nothing unique or exceptional about the specific listing of Equality Australia compared with other organisations.' So what is the motive? I don't know. All I can take from it is that they have adverse intentions and are, again, trying to create division amongst Australians.

Equality Australia, I might add, has been a registered charity in Australia since January 2026 and was first incorporated as an Australian public company in December 2015. Upon incorporation it applied for and was granted charitable status by the ACNC and has maintained its status. So there is nothing irregular at all about them being listed in this bill in schedule 5 as a DGR.

That amendment has been backed in by Senator Chandler. I don't know if that is the position of the opposition but, given her new senior position within the Taylor opposition, I am assuming it is the position of the opposition. I thought there were quite reasonable people on that side who would support LGBTQI+ people having a voice in organisations and would be actually supporting LGBTQI+ people in the community, but, again, they're bowing to the likes of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. They are drifting farther to the right, to divide people and to hurt people. I commend the bill.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year's pre-election budget contained a hidden announcement indicating the federal government's intention to award deductible gift recipient status to Equality Australia. Additionally, deductible gift recipient is called registered charity status. That allows donations to the organisation to be claimed as tax deductions. Reduced taxation from donors means taxpayers wind up paying more, so, if a body is getting charity status, they better deserve it. The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 makes that happen—granting charity status to a lobby group Equality Australia until 1 July 2030. In other words, taxpayers will pay for donations to Equality Australia.

For those who don't know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. Their strategy is to force religious schools to teach the same perverted agenda taught in public schools, even to the point of forcing religious schools to hire trans teachers. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia as well as other faith based schools, numbering almost 2,800 schools across Australia. It strongly advocates to strip protections that currently and tenuously allow Christian schools to operate in name and in nature—that is, as Christian schools.

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws which permit schools to fire, demote or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity or to expel or deny enrolment students on those grounds, as being contrary their religious teachings, although only certain religious groups. Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasah on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools. Both religions treat these issues the same way. It is this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group not a charity and a gutless one at that—a dishonest lobby group.

The background to this issue is that Equality Australia has previously sought public benevolent institution status as a way to get tax deductibility for the donor, yet the government's Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission rejected those attempts, and then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected the same attempts, and then the full Federal Court rejected the same attempts. All decided that Equality Australia is not a charity. It's a lobby group. They even say that in their strategic plan. While this was going on, media reports suggest Equality Australia has been rorting the system, channelling donations through another charity, Thorne Harbour Health, formerly the Victorian AIDS Council, and there you have it. What a pile. This arrangement may be allowing an entity which is not a charity but a lobby group to use, in whole or in part, tax deductions to an AIDS trust. This is a clearly non-conforming operation.

Complaints have been made to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Prime Minister's hand-picked governor-general is controversially the patron of Equality Australia, and the Australian newspaper has reported the Governor-General has declined to answer their questions on the appropriateness of this arrangement.

This bill was passed through the House of Representatives on 26 November 2025 and went to the Senate standing committee on economics for inquiry and report, and, of course, they rubberstamped it. One Nation calls for the granting of deductible gift status to Equality Australia to be put on hold until the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission completes investigations into these dodgy financial arrangements.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission grants charity status as a routine measure. It's only when an organisation which does not deserve to be a charity applies that bills like this come before the Senate. You know it—bills that overrule the experts, overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and override the full Federal Court. Does the minister know better than all of these bodies? Of course not. This decision has been taken because there are votes in the urban bubble in this war on Christianity and in Equality Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals pursuing gender.

And there's more. The Productivity Commission is reviewing the whole system for granting charity status. Their final report on philanthropy within Australia proposed a wholesale upheaval of the deductible gift recipient system. Why don't we do that—suspend more of these legislated overrules of the system until these matters can be settled? It would be terrifying to open the door to Equality Australia's having more money to conduct its war on Christianity and on religious schools—sorry, its war on Christian schools. It's not a war on Islamic schools but on Christian schools—not all religious schools, just Christian schools. With stronger campaign finance behind the lobby group, our schools are in danger of coming under attack once more.

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 and to not take political positions. This leads to many questions for the government. Firstly, how is it that the Governor-General can be patron of a political activist group like Equality Australia, which actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children? Secondly, why did Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings 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 such a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the full bench of the Federal Court? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group, the lobby group Equality Australia? Isn't this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirement of neutrality of the Governor-General?

Observing the government's blatant contradiction of the law, does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group, the activist group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government—on your behalf? Is this lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children's futile attempts to change sex, to change gender? One Nation will propose an amendment to the bill as follows: delete clause 4 of schedule 5 of the bill in its entirety and, consequently, delete chapter 5.18 of the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Turning to the bill as a whole, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund made during the onboarding of new employees and ban the advertising of certain superannuation products—fair enough. Additionally, it amends the income tax assessment acts to provide income tax and withholding-tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance. It amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum amount of wine equalisation tax producer rebate that eligible wine producers can claim to $400,000 each financial year.

I now address comments made by Senators McKim and Dolega in their second reading speeches earlier today. By the way, One Nation has members of the LGBTIQ community in its membership and in its voter base. In response to Senator McKim's comments about LGBTQI+, I note that many lesbians, gays and bisexuals oppose gender affirmation as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children. They oppose it, and they oppose it very strongly—I've spoken to them. Like One Nation, they know that surgery to chop body parts off children and the hormone and chemical treatment of adolescents alters brain function and puberty and neuter the victims' ability to have children later. One Nation clearly opposes gender affirmation of children as a way of treating gender dysphoria, a known mental health condition that children pass through. One Nation points to the lack of peer reviewed, double-blind, scientific and medical studies that support gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of studies and experts in the field now discrediting gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of children and parents using legal action, court action, to sue those now known to harm children through surgical, hormonal and/or chemical means implementing gender affirmation.

In response to Senator Dolega's use of labels—through you, Chair—including 'cookers' and 'homophobes', against us, I note that labels are the refuge of those incapable of responding with a rational, fact based argument, whether their claim is ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, desperate, stupid, weak, lazy or fearful. When people resort to using labels, they confirm they have neither the data nor the logical argument to counter their opponent's position. In that way, those who resort to labels admit they lack a counter argument. They're admitting they have lost. It's also not possible to give offence—only to take offence. Calling me a cooker or a homophobe—whatever—has no impact on me. It won't stop me telling the truth. I do not take offence. Until the recipient takes offence, labels are mere words that tell everyone about the labeller, not the labelled.

In conclusion, as I foreshadowed earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to this bill in committee stage. If the amendment is not carried, One Nation will oppose this bill; if the amendment is carried, One Nation will support the bill.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, before you conclude, I want to draw your attention to standing order 193(2) of the Senate, which directs:

A senator shall not refer to the King, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate …

I would ask you to reflect on your comments with regard to the Governor-General and consider whether you wish to withdraw them.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was referring to the Governor-General's actions and whether or not the government condone them.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I might refer this matter to the President to look at what you said a bit more closely, but my recollection, Senator Roberts, was that you called into question the partiality or otherwise of the Governor-General. Is that not your recollection?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I would ask you to withdraw, because that is a—

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. There is nothing particularly offensive about the bill. This is a multischedule Treasury bill that covers a range of unrelated measures—for those who are tuning in and watching Senate time at 6.40 on a Wednesday night. Some elements of the bill are sensible and deserve support. For example, streamlining the process for employees to choose their superannuation fund during their onboarding process is clearly a practical reform that could reduce confusion and unnecessary paperwork. It also gives workers a clearer control over where their super goes, and I think that's a very important element. However, the bill also contains provisions that raise serious concerns about transparency and the priorities of the government.

One schedule in particular that I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to provides tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. This includes income tax and withholding tax exemptions linked to upcoming international events. At a time when Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, many people would reasonably ask the question: why is the parliament being asked to prioritise tax concessions for an international sporting body rather than addressing the issues that everyday Australians are facing—whether that be fuel prices skyrocketing; having childcare deserts, such as in my home state of Western Australia; our government pushing us towards an illegal war; or the cost of living remaining completely unbearable? Parents are having to choose between paying bills, buying groceries and paying for their mortgage and putting a roof over their kids' heads—and the priority of the government is to give tax breaks to World Rugby. I don't understand the rationale. I have no idea why this decision was made.

Another issue I have is the lack of transparency that we're seeing when it comes to the financial impact. The explanatory memorandum fails to estimate the cost to the budget. Instead, it uses vague language such as 'significant' or 'unquantifiable'. I mean, come on! That's simply not good enough. Senators are being asked to vote on legislation without knowing how much it will cost taxpayers. Again, this isn't an isolated situation or an isolated case. We've seen it time and time again, and it's become a pattern of the government. It proposes bills before the Senate without any clear financial disclosure. That impacts our role here, as senators. Our job is to scrutinise legislation very carefully, and that job becomes extremely difficult when the financial implications are hidden by the government behind specific types of vague wording. Transparency is literally the bare minimum standard that our parliament should adhere to. Australians deserve to know what decisions have been made, who they benefit and what the cost is to the public purse.

That's why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) expresses concern that during a cost-of-living crisis that is punishing everyday Australians, the Albanese Government's priority is to provide tax breaks to World Rugby;

(b) notes that the explanatory memorandum for this bill fails to estimate the impact these tax breaks will have on the Budget; and

(c) condemns the rise in explanatory memoranda for government bills failing to quantify their financial impact and instead cloaking the cost of measures in secrecy by using words like 'significant' and 'unquantifiable', leaving the Senate in the dark as to what effect the measures they are voting on will have on the Budget".

The amendment does three very simple things: it expresses concern that, during a cost-of-living crisis, the government's priority includes tax breaks for World Rugby; it notes that the explanatory memorandum does not estimate the budget impact of these measures; and it calls out the growing practice of hiding costs behind vague language, leaving the Senate in the dark. This amendment does not block the bill; it simply asks the parliament to acknowledge the problem of transparency that many across the crossbench and the coalition have been raising time and time again. If the government believes that these tax exemptions are justified then it should have no problem showing us the costs and being upfront about the costs. Good policy requires good scrutiny, and we cannot have good scrutiny without honest information at the table for everyone to see. That's the least that we can provide to the Australian people, and that's what they expect from us, because they've sent us here to make sure that we've crossed our t's and dotted our i's.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank all the senators who have contributed to this debate. I note the Senate economics committee report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, including the dissenting report and additional comments, but the government does not support the recommendations outlined.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during employee onboarding. This amendment provides greater flexibility for employers or their agents to request an employee's existing stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. That way, if a stapled fund exists, the employer can provide those details to the employee during onboarding.

This amendment supports the government's commitment to empowering employees to make informed choices, by making it easier to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job—if they choose to do so. It will also give employers more timely and accurate superannuation details, supporting their readiness for the government's payday super reforms.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding. Exceptions will be available for showing employees their stapled fund, the employer's default fund and certain MySuper products which are subject to regulation. This amendment reinforces the government's commitment to supporting Australians to make an informed choice about their superannuation, while providing strong consumer protections.

Schedule 3 of the bill implements key budget measures to provide tax exemptions for the Rugby World Cup 2027 and 2029 events, which Australia is proud to host. These exemptions are a standard feature of international hosting arrangements and are critical to fulfilling our commitments to World Rugby. The exemptions are consistent with previous exemptions granted for events such as the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC T20 World Cup. This measure is a practical and necessary step to ensure the success of these events and to uphold Australia's reputation as a trusted and capable host of major international competitions.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force of law to the tax treaty between Australia and Portugal. This treaty is the first of its kind between Australia and Portugal and is in Australia's national interest. It will provide closer bilateral linkages with Portugal, particularly in the areas of commercial trade, investment and innovation. It will provide Australian individuals and businesses with increased opportunities to access capital and technology from Portugal by reducing tax on cross-border income and providing greater tax certainty. It will also facilitate labour mobility to strengthen our cultural ties with Portugal. Finally, the treaty builds on Australia's existing tax integrity measures, designed to combat international tax evasion and avoidance, ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Schedule 5 of the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the following organisations as deductible gift recipients: Coaxial Foundation, Community Foundations Australia, Equality Australia, Foundation Broken Hill, Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment, the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Social Enterprise Australia, St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, Sydney Chevra Kadisha, the Great Synagogue Foundation and Project Parenthood Ltd. The schedule also removes the following specifically listed entities: the Bradman Memorial Fund, Clontarf Foundation, NSCA Foundation, Sydney Talmudical College Association Refugees Overseas Aid Fund, the Australian Future Leaders Foundation, the Ranfurly Library Service, the Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation and WA National Parks and Reserves Association.

Schedule 6 of the bill will increase support available to all eligible wine producers under the existing wine equalisation tax producer rebate scheme from a cap of $350,000 per financial year to $400,000 from 1 July 2026. These changes deliver on the government's commitment to supporting the Australian wine industry as well as regional tourism investment and job creation. I commend the bill to the Senate, and I thank senators for their contribution.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.