Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 3682 together:

(3) Schedule 5, item 4, page 14 (lines 13 to 15), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 5, item 20, page 16 (lines 14 to 16), to be opposed.

Just to foreshadow within the broader Committee of the Whole stage of the debate here this evening, the coalition isn't seeking to take up too much time because I think the vast majority of our amendments have all been foreshadowed in second reading contributions earlier today. The amendments that I have just moved are in relation to the DGR status for Equality Australia. Again, as I and others foreshadowed earlier today, we do not support the DGR listing for Equality Australia given it has failed to meet the standards required of public benevolent institutions to achieve this listing.

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

Can I clarify what amendments—the Senate moves quickly sometimes. Is it sheet 3682?

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe it's sheet 3682. I believe the opposition has moved (3) and (4).

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

Well, the government won't be supporting these amendments because the effect of this is to remove Equality Australia from the list of deductible gift recipients. There are a number of these organisations that have all gone through the same process in order to get DGR status. Equality Australia is a national organisation dedicated to equality for LGBTIQ+ people. They combine legal, policy and communications expertise with thousands of supporters to ensure LGBTIQ+ people are treated with dignity and respect. Equality Australia exists to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTQI+ people in Australia and their families by: relieving distress and disadvantage to LGBTQI+ people; reducing the prevalence and relieving the effects of depression, suicide, anxiety, bullying and homelessness they experience; reducing the stigma and discrimination they experience; advancing and promoting equality and inclusion; and enhancing their actual and sense of safety, security and acceptance.

The government greatly appreciates the important contribution made to Australian communities and not-for-profit organisations. We understand that advocacy is an important way that charities work to change Australia for the better, and I think the list of DGR recipients that I read out in my second reading speech actually reminds us what an amazing country we live in with a full range of different organisations that have been listed there across education, advocacy, community work, people of different religious faiths, health spaces, social enterprises and in early childhood. I think it's actually a sign of the strength of our country that we would have organisations that should be specifically listed in this bill as deductible gift recipients or getting that status to do the important work that they do across the Australian community.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I was hoping you could provide some explanation for why a series of animal welfare groups, particularly those doing rehoming of wildlife and those doing advocacy for wildlife, have been excluded from having DGR status? I do this because I'm probably not the only member of the chamber and downstairs who, just earlier today, saw the extraordinary Matilda, an animal hospital truck, out the front. I see Senator Collins. Did you get to nurse a baby wombat outside in the Matilda hospital? It's extraordinary. It'll be there tomorrow. You can go and nurse a baby wombat as part of the extraordinary work that Wildlife Recovery Australia has been doing to help injured wildlife, to help wildlife carers. I'd urge anyone who hasn't been down there to visit the truck. Maybe, Senator Duniam, you'll change your views about the mass shooting of wallabies if you do that. Go down and visit the Matilda animal hospital. If that doesn't fill you with the spirit of protecting Australia's amazing national wildlife—there are two little baby boy wombats and an amazing carer who's been down there raising them from when they were little pink pups.

They've managed to get DGR status for Wildlife Recovery Australia. It cost over $1 million to set up this mobile animal hospital. When you go in, it's extraordinary. There are X-ray machines. There's an operating theatre. There are spaces for nursing and caring. If you want to see the extraordinary nature of Australia's wildlife, you can see this extraordinary X-ray of a fruit bat—the only powered-flight mammals on the planet. They're extraordinary creatures.

I raise this in this debate because not only is that extraordinary out there—I say go and see the Matilda Hospital. They travel around the country. They can go to where there are disasters. If there have been fires or floods, they can go and provide emergency relief for animals. Their daily job is providing emergency support for our wildlife—if they've been hit by trucks, if they've been hit by cars, if turtles get caught up in fishing lines and debris on our coasts or if koalas get run down and attacked by wild dogs. They are extraordinary and they provide that daily relief.

They've got DGR status, so they can actually have a funding method to fund them, and they have the extraordinary generosity of the public. Maybe they could do with some Commonwealth funding, Minister. I tell you what, they could do with some recurrent Commonwealth funding to keep the Matilda hospital up and running and keep it on the road. It's an extraordinary place.

But there are too many animal welfare groups who don't have DGR status because of the narrow requirements for DGR status. If the animal welfare group is just about rehoming wildlife—surely we want groups to be out there rehoming wildlife. If they've recovered a koala that's been burnt in the fires—it goes in, it's been rehomed and nursed back to health. Surely we want those organisations to have DGR status. They are extremely generous, warm hearted members of our community who are out there looking after our wildlife after a disaster or after they've been hit by a car—looking after little wombat pups that were rescued when their mum was hit by car.

I know that there's an amendment that has been circulated. I think it's amendment 3645, which my colleague Senator McKim put, which would widen the DGR status eligibility to include animal welfare organisations and to include those organisations that rehouse our extraordinary native wildlife. I can't work out why the government is resisting that and why we don't value organisations that are out there rehoming wild animals, doing the disaster and crisis emergency response for animals and animal welfare advocacy.

This is a matter that I know many of my Greens colleagues across the country are deeply passionate about, because we see the great work they do. Minister, I suppose the first question is: will the government be supporting amendment 3645? If not, what is your answer to those extraordinary, generous Australians who give their time for these amazing organisations to advocate for our wildlife and to rehome them when they need it?

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

On the foreshadowed amendments on sheet 3645, I support much of what you said, Senator Shoebridge. I'm a big animal lover. I've been very involved with the RSPCA here in the ACT. My life after politics will involve animals, for sure, and rescuing animals; I look forward to it. However, the arguments you run could also be run around a whole range of voluntary and community organisational work that gets done across the community.

We have the categories that are eligible for consideration for DGR status, and I can run through those: health, education, research, welfare and rights, defence, environment, the family, international affairs, sports and rec, cultural organisations, fire and emergency services, ancillary funds and community charities. Indeed, there are a number of wildlife organisations who are already eligible for DGR endorsement under the existing DGR general categories. Organisations with the principal purpose of short-term, direct care or rehab of animals, such as the Wildlife Information Rescue and Education Service—or WIRES—and Wildlife Recovery Australia, are endorsed as DGRs, as well as certain animal welfare organisations which have been specifically listed in the tax law as DGRs. For example, the RSPCA and each of its state and territory affiliates is specifically listed in the tax law; it treats, protects and rehomes animals, along with empowering and educating communities to improve animal welfare across the country.

However, we will not be supporting the amendments in Senator Faruqi's name that you foreshadowed. In 2023, the Albanese government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a review of philanthropy to identify opportunities for and obstacles to increasing philanthropic giving. The PC was independent in undertaking this review, and its final report made several findings and recommendations, including that reforms to the DGR system should be introduced to create fairer and more consistent outcomes for donors, charities and the community. The PC found that the complexity of the system continues to increase as new DGR endorsement categories are added in a piecemeal manner.

The government announced in the 2024-25 MYEFO that it would initially implement the following recommendations from the Productivity Commission's final report Future foundations for giving: removing the condition that a gift to a deductible gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim a tax deduction; aligning and increasing the minimum annual distribution rate for public and private ancillary funds, to be renamed giving funds; and allowing funds to smooth distribution over three years. The government continues to consider its response to the PC report's recommendation on DGR reform. We have worked through these reforms with careful consideration, and we will continue to be guided by the recommendations of the PC's report and the sector-led not-for-profit sector development blueprint as we work to double giving in Australia.

Alongside those commitments, we've been working methodically to reform Australia's DGR system and support our charities. We've streamlined the DGR system by returning four key categories to the ATO; created the new 'community charity' category to encourage more local and place based giving and to broaden the pool of regular Australian donors; given the charities commissioner greater discretion to comment on compliance activity; and expanded the ACNC advisory board to be more representative of the sector and to strengthen the network of charity regulators across the Commonwealth and the states and territories.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that detailed contribution, Minister, and partial explanation. I'm familiar with the findings of the report, but one of the key things that I think many Australians would be surprised to know is that, as a result of this bill, and if the government doesn't go outside the conclusions of that report, a series of incredibly valued organisations that do animal welfare work will continue to be excluded from DGR status.

One of those organisations that I had the pleasure of working with closely when I was a member of the state parliament was Animals Australia. Animals Australia does extraordinary campaigns to address some systemic issues of animal welfare—for me, some of the most fundamental issues of animal welfare—and I think our society tries to pretend they don't happen. There are cruelties that happen in much of industrial agriculture, and Animals Australia have been extraordinary in exposing those cruelties, such as chickens in battery cages. This cruelty is inflicted on millions of these quite remarkable little creatures every day across this country.

I don't know if any of you have had the pleasure of having backyard chooks, but they have amazing little personalities. They're little, distinct creatures who can be extremely affectionate and have their own distinct personalities if they're given the chance. But, as Animals Australia has pointed out so often and so compellingly, they are put in these cruel cages, unable to express any of their natural attributes and unable to do any of their social activities, all so there can be marginally cheaper eggs produced with marginally lower input costs—as you've reduced their energy output because they can't move. The cruelty that Animals Australia have exposed through their campaigning in this regard has been quite extraordinary, and I'm incredibly grateful for the work they do. But they can't get DGR status; they're excluded because they do advocacy.

There's the work they do pointing out the cruelty in the industrial raising of pigs, with sows kept in narrow cages where they can't roll and can't move—and the wounds they have and the appalling life they have. Pigs are incredibly intelligent and incredibly communal creatures, and Animals Australia has done some incredibly brave work pointing out the cruelty that happens to pigs in those industrial intensive piggeries.

There's the work that they're doing right now in urging the ACT government not to grant permits to kill wombats. I said earlier that there were two beautiful little boy wombats out there in the Matilda truck, but, unless something changes, the ACT government will continue to issue permits to kill wombats. Animals Australia have been doing the advocacy, making the case that wombats in this country should not be subject to killing and trying to get the ACT government to change their plans.

Minister, are you familiar with the work of Animals Australia? I genuinely accept your belief in a post-politics career in caring for animals or in career volunteer work; I genuinely accept it. Sometimes I wonder why the politics divide us in some of these actions of trying to come up with a system that cares for animals and treats them as sentient creatures that we have the enormous benefit of sharing the planet with. And Animals Australia are trying to do that work. They're trying to make our nation, our food production systems and our landscape management actually treat animals as sentient creatures. So, Minister, why won't your government amend the DGR so that Animals Australia and other advocacy groups like them get that DGR status?

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

As I said in my earlier remarks, the reason we're here and discussing this is that the government has, in this bill, listed a number of organisations to become deductible gift recipient organisations, and, because they don't fit in the existing categories, they were brought to the parliament for consideration through this law. As I said earlier, I have a lot of support for animal welfare organisations. It's a bit scary to agree with you, Senator Shoebridge, on so much of the content of your previous remarks! I have found some things—like when I was Chief Minister here and having to authorise the kangaroo cull—extremely challenging because of my own views about animals and animal welfare. And I understand the live debate about wombats, as well.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the rabbits, too!

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

Yes, even the rabbits. There are a lot of rabbits in Canberra at the moment.

There is nothing to prevent those organisations from seeking the same approval as these organisations have. We get a lot of requests for DGR status. Some of them can be met automatically; others can come through this process. But I would also say there are number of animal welfare organisations that have DGR status. If there are others that think they fit the criteria for consideration by government, I would urge them to apply.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Early this year, concerns were raised that Australian registered charities are funnelling tax-deductible funds to illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as the Israel Defense Forces. A recent investigative report and data from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission identified several organisations linked to these activities. Jewish National Fund Australia is reported to have remitted over $125.4 million to Israel since 2009. An investigative document suggests that these funds have supported illegal settlements and IDF linked projects. An investigation by Michael West Media revealed that the United Israel Appeal Refugee Relief Fund has transferred approximately $376 million to Israel since 2013, via Keren Hayesod, with some funds reaching settlement expansion projects and soldiers. In early 2026 the Chai Charitable Foundation was found to be hosting fundraisers for organisations providing direct support to IDF soldiers and settlement communities in Tekoa and Hebron. I note that it did remove those campaigns from its home page, following media scrutiny. The United Nations special rapporteur has identified IsraelGives and Christians for Israel as having Australian subsidiaries with DGR status that may be enabling similar funding.

It is obviously of significant concern if there are charitable organisations in Australia that are funnelling funds to illegal occupiers and illegal settlements. The ACNC has said that it cannot enforce international law, such as the illegality of settlements, unless it's explicitly incorporated into domestic Australian law. I note that, between October 2023 and December 2025, the ACNC received 896 concerns, related to 88 charities, regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict. Obviously, given that these donations are tax-deductible, if they are finding their way to organisations that are associated with the illegal occupation of those territories, that effectively means taxpayers are subsidising illegal occupation and militarisation.

So the question that I put to the minister is: will the government support the foreshadowed Greens amendment, which would mean a loss of DGR status for organisations that are shown to be supporting illegal occupations?

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

This relates to the amendment circulating in Senator Faruqi's name, on sheet 3646. The government won't be supporting this amendment, and I'll briefly take you through why.

There is no DGR category or purpose that allows charities to support illegal activities at home or abroad. Registered charities already must ensure that they meet their ongoing obligations to the ACNC, including by complying with the ACNC's governance standards, and the ACNC's governance standards require a charity to remain charitable, operate lawfully and be run in an accountable and responsible way.

Charities that operate overseas, including giving funds, must also comply with the ACNC's external conduct standards. These standards require charities to take reasonable steps to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour, governance, oversight and record keeping when undertaking activities or providing resources overseas. The governance standards require charities to comply with all Australian law, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 or hate speech legislation that has passed. The external conduct standards also require a charity to comply with Australian law as it relates to international sanctions, terrorism financing and slavery or slavery-like conditions, and to have reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with those laws. The external conduct standards do not extend to conduct under international law.

Governance and external conduct standards also require a charity to ensure its resources are only used to further its purpose and that it is operating in a way consistent with a not-for-profit entity. Charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met. Where a charity's registration is revoked, the ATO may also remove its access to DGR status and other tax concessions. I would also say to Senator Allman-Payne that, if there are charities that she is concerned about and that she doesn't believe meet those standards, I would urge her or her colleagues to make that known to the ACNC.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak to the amendments that have already been moved by the opposition.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's fine. I understand you have ones that are identical. So you'll speak to the opposition amendments?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, yes. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is typical of what we've seen from this Labor government: a hodgepodge of issues with seemingly no connection but with a poison pill buried in it. Schedule 5 of this bill includes the addition of Equality Australia as a deductible gift recipient, a designation usually reserved for charities. As with many other far-left organisations, Equality Australia sounds perfectly harmless. Who could argue against equality? But this organisation is a vehicle for radical gender activism aimed at our children. It is focused on lobbying and influencing policy all over Australia. Right now in my home state of Western Australia, religious schools are exempt from equality laws, which allows them to protect and shield children from the harmful gender ideologies that have crept into every crevice of the public education system. On Equality Australia's website, they have an entire report around trying to overturn these protections and forcing Christian schools to accept activists who would peddle transgender ideology to children. This organisation is the agent of an ideology that refuses to allow parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to be exposed to.

The public school system has been captured in its entirety by woke ideology. We have reports of children identifying as animals and we see LGBTQI flags hanging in classrooms, while the curriculum demonises the Australian flag and teaches our kids to see this amazing country as an evil, colonial, genocidal project. It is little wonder that parents are forking out good money to send their kids to Christian schools that have resisted becoming ideological brainwashing camps. The public education system needs complete reform so that those who can't afford private education are not left behind for the delusional far left for 12 years. This is why, when I see an organisation like Equality Australia getting favours from the Labor government, it makes my blood boil. You have the entire public system singing your tune. Can you not leave parents a single off-ramp from your insane ideology so that they can feel safe that their children are not being asked what gender they are today?

But the idea that this organisation is not fit to be treated as a charity—that is, not a public benevolent institution—is not mine. It was a decision of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The ACNC decided that Equality Australia did not qualify under any of the 53 categories of a deductible gift recipient. Their application was rejected on the basis that the group's primary purpose of the group was non-benevolent advocacy for law reform. Basically, they are lobbyists. But it didn't stop there. They appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who also rejected the case, finding that their primary focus was on changing law and social practices. And it didn't stop there. A further appeal was lodged with the Full Federal Court, who unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding that both the AAT and the ACNC were correct in their assessment that this entity is not a public benevolent institution but a lobbyist group.

After the judiciary made these sensible determinations and rejected the notion that this lobbyist group should be subsidised with taxpayer dollars, what did they do? They went to the one group that loves to give away taxpayer dollars and promote transgender ideology to your children: Labor. Sure enough, the next thing we see is the Labor government burying a decision to promote trans ideology to children in a superannuation bill that has nothing to do with it. This is pathetic, cowardly pandering by the Labor government.

If that isn't enough, the plot thickens again. It turns out that the Governor-General of Australia, Sam Mostyn, is a patron of Equality Australia. Equality Australia's website includes the following quote by the Governor-General:

I look forward to amplifying Equality Australia's mission to build an equal Australia that is fair and inclusive for all LGBTIQ+ people, their families and their communities.

It doesn't say 'children'. The smell of favouritism and nepotism is rife here. There are so many serious problems facing Australians, and here is the Labor government wasting time doing favours—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator Whitten. If you would resume your seat, I have a point of order from the minister.

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

Earlier, we had a ruling from Acting Deputy President Sharma, as the chair, about the standing orders, where a speech impugns the reputation of the Governor-General. It was on this exact point. Senator Roberts was required to withdraw, and I would suggest Senator Whitten do the same.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: In the spirit of cooperation, if you wouldn't mind withdrawing, that would be excellent.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. With so many serious problems facing Australia, here is the Labor government wasting time doing favours for friends that want to push a radical gender ideology. If you have children or grandchildren and you want to have the option to send your kids to a school where they can just be kids and not be exposed to this radical ideology, write to your Labor members and ask them why they want to promote this ideology to children. Ask them why they buried it in an unrelated superannuation bill. Ask them why they are advocating for taking away parents' right to choose what is best for their kids. If you care about the wellbeing of children, the Labor party has abandoned you.

I'm giving those in this room who care deeply about the wellbeing and education of children an opportunity to reject the endorsement of radical gender ideology. If you vote this amendment down, you are telling all the parents of Australia that you agree that all schools, no matter their moral conviction, must adhere to this far-left madness. You will not be on the right side of history. Look at the UK's Cass review and the shutdown of the Tavistock clinic on the basis that the evidence for the treatment of children with puberty blockers was incredibly weak, with huge holes in the collection of data. It is dressed up as science, but any digging below the surface reveals that it is merely ideological fantasy.

Just this month, the Australian released a piece on the collection of data on puberty blockers in Australia. The data is being suppressed, with six out of eight states and territories withholding their information. If organisations like Equality Australia believe that they are doing the right thing, why the secrecy? Why not release all the data that supports the claims? The simple fact is that there is no data to support the claims. Their insane world view harms children. History will not look kindly on those who have hurt children in the name of ideology.

Once again, I ask everyone in this place to carefully consider which side of history they want to be on. How complicit do you want to be in promoting this madness? Let's leave parents with the option to not have their kids exposed to this insanity. Leave Christian and independent schools alone.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, may I speak to the same amendment that the senator has just addressed?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You certainly can.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't going to speak on this amendment, but I just got off the phone with my wife and my daughter, and it made me think that it would be a good thing to respond to some of the accusations that have been made about this organisation. Equality Australia has helped my family an enormous amount. In fact, we wouldn't be married or have a daughter if it wasn't for Equality Australia. The work that they do to help people in this country who still face discrimination every single day and still face an incredible amount of mental health harm from exposure to comments like this is exactly why Equality Australia should be supported through this bill and why the amendment proposed by the coalition, not One Nation, should be voted down.

The other thing I want to say about this amendment—I'm not going to debate you on the validity of my family and the love that we have. That's not a debate that I'm going to have with you today. We won that debate in this country many years ago, in this chamber and in the chamber over there and in the streets outside. We won that debate because Equality Australia brought people together from all across the country. They brought people from corporate life, from unions, from sporting organisations and from every single part of this political life. The point that I wanted to make is that, now, the modern Liberal Party is moving motions like this.

Back in the day, when we were debating whether I would have the ability to marry the person I love, those on the other marched with us. They marched with Equality Australia, and now they want to take them down. That's how much modern Liberal Party has changed because they're fighting with you—a culture war—to make sure that you don't take seats off them, instead of doing what's right and standing up for people who need the help of an organisation like Equality Australia. I can't believe that, in a bill like this, looking at superannuation, the Liberal Party has managed to find another culture war. We see this all the time. Whether it's LGBTQIA communities, multicultural communities or First Nations people, there isn't a culture war in this place that the Liberal Party isn't prepared to fight so they can take on One Nation.

We will always stand up for people in the LGBTQIA community. I am very proud to stand up for my family and my community, and that's why we will be opposing this amendment.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to associate myself with the words that we just heard from Senator Green, with the very, very minor caveat that, although Equality Australia played an absolutely critical role in the delivery of marriage equality, there were many other advocates who were not involved with Equality Australia who also contributed significantly to that campaign, including many who were campaigning for marriage equality before Equality Australia even existed. The sentiments outlined by Senator Green are exactly sentiments that the Australian Greens would associate themselves with.

I have to say there has basically never been a trans kid in this country that One Nation weren't prepared to sacrifice and throw under the bus in the name of their incessant fighting of culture wars. There has never been a trans kid in this country who One Nation are not prepared to demonise and persecute in the pursuit of their dangerous ideology. I remind people that trans children are some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We need to wrap our arms around them and show them love and support, and I say that as someone who had a trans kid, who is now a fantastic young trans man in my family. I went through Jasper's journey with him, and he knows that I speak about him in this place, and he's very happy for me to do this. I went through that journey with him, and I fought for him and with him and for and with every other trans kid in this country, all the way through, and I will continue to do that. Every time One Nation gets up and tries to throw trans kids under the bus, I'll push back. I know my colleagues in the Australian Greens—every single one of us—will push back, and we will fight for the rights of trans kids to be who they are and to be loved and respected for what they are.

This is not a choice, as is so deliberately miscategorised by people in this debate who are transphobic. This is not a choice; this is a critical fundamental matter of who they are as human beings. Honestly, I can't see why every single senator in this place would not respect the right of people to be who they are and to be embraced and loved and respected for who they are.

What did trans kids ever do to you? What did they do to you to make you go to war with them in such an egregious, foul and despicable way—to bring about such harm to such a vulnerable and marginalised section of our community? What this Senate should do and what all senators should do is show love and respect to trans people in this country and show that we are prepared to support them all the way, as the Australian Greens do.

Progress reported.