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

The committee is considering amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 3682 moved by Senator Chandler. The question is that items 4 and 20 on schedule 5 stand as printed.

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

I move amendment (2) on sheet 3682:

(2) Schedules 1 and 2, page 3 (line 1) to page 6 (line 26), to be opposed.

As foreshadowed in the second reading contributions on this bill, there are some elements of this bill that the coalition is supportive of, and there are others that we are not supportive of. In effect, this amendment on sheet 3682 would remove schedule 1 and schedule 2 from the bill. That is in relation to the superannuation changes proposed in the legislation.

As I said in my second reading contribution—other colleagues also vocalised concerns—we are concerned that the government is rushing elements of this bill too quickly, but we want to provide the opportunity for other sensible aspects of this bill to pass quickly. Industry have made their concerns clear. We fear that the end result of these superannuation changes will be worse outcomes for Australian workers, more duplicate accounts, more fees and worse outcomes for employers attempting to comply with these new requirements on top of their new payday superannuation obligations. As I've said, there are also some parts of this bill that we are in agreement with—those in relation to the tax exemptions associated with hosting the Men's Rugby World Cup, the implementation of the Australia-Portugal tax treaty and the increases to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap.

In effect, what this amendment would be seeking to achieve is to remove the sections of the bill that we are not in agreement with and keep the sections of the bill that we are in agreement with. For the ease of the chamber, that is what we are attempting to do here. That does, in effect, mean that, with this amendment, we would be remove schedules 1 and 2, which we find problematic, from this bill.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing the proposed amendment by Senator Chandler. Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill are important reforms to streamline and safeguard the process for when employees provide their superannuation details to their employer during onboarding.

Australians starting a new job deserve to make an informed choice about their superannuation fund without inappropriate advertising, and schedule 1 provides greater flexibility for employers or their agents to request employees' 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 to help inform their choice of fund. The schedule supports the government's commitment to empower 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. Without schedule 1, employees remain in the dark about their existing super fund, increasing the risk of unintended duplicate accounts that can erode retirement savings.

Schedule 2 imposes a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exemptions. Onboarding is a key moment when employees engage with their superannuation, and they should be able to do so in an informed and safe way. Removing schedule 2 would leave the door open to more cases of inappropriate advertising as uncovered during the government's review of the Your Future, Your Super laws. The review found that some software providers are undermining stapling and directing employees towards advertised products, including those associated with the software provider. The government is committed to stop this inappropriate practice. Schedule 2 will protect employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, open inappropriate products and unintentionally create duplicate accounts.

Taken together, these are sensible, important reforms that will streamline and safeguard an employee's superannuation choice during onboarding. Legislating these amendments now is critical to ensure employees are protected as soon as possible and to give employers more timely and accurate superannuation details to support their readiness for the government's payday super reforms. Hence we will be opposing this.

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

The question is that schedules 1 and 2 stand as printed.

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

That means that amendment (1) on sheet 3682 lapses.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3646 together:

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

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

Schedule 8 — Loss of deductible gift recipient status for supporting illegal occupation

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 At the end of subsection 30-125(1)

Add:

Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150).

2 At the end of subsection 30-125(2)

Add:

Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150).

3 After section 30-130

Insert:

30-150 No entitlement to endorsement for entities supporting illegal occupation

(1) An entity is not entitled to be endorsed as:

(a) a *deductible gift recipient (despite subsection 30-125(1)); or

(b) a *deductible gift recipient for the operation of a fund, authority or institution (despite subsection 30-125(2));

if the entity has supported an *illegal occupation.

(2) The *Foreign Affairs Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a declaration specifying an occupation of the whole or part of a territory as an illegal occupation.

Application in relation to non-legal persons

(3) An entity that is:

(a) a partnership; or

(b) a trust; or

(c) an unincorporated body or association;

is taken to have supported an *illegal occupation if an accountable person for the entity has supported the illegal occupation in the person's capacity as an accountable person for the entity.

Definitions

(4) For the purposes of this section, an accountable person for an entity is:

(a) in the case of a partnership—a person who is a partner in the partnership; or

(b) in the case of a trust—a person who is a trustee of the trust; or

(c) in the case of an unincorporated body or association—a person who is a member of the governing body or committee of management (however described) of the unincorporated body or association.

(5) For the purposes of this section, an entity has supported an *illegal occupation if the entity has in any way (whether directly or indirectly) advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported (within the ordinary meaning of that expression), participated in or contributed to the establishment, maintenance or expansion of the illegal occupation.

4 Subsection 995-1(1)

Insert:

illegal occupation: see subsection 30-150(2).

5 Application of amendments

Section 30-150 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to entities that have supported (within the meaning of that section) an illegal occupation after the commencement of this item, whether:

(a) that support began before or after that commencement; or

(b) the entity is endorsed, or proposed to be endorsed, before or after that commencement.

These amendments are crucial. They are a crucial and necessary change to DGR status that ensures that no organisations that support illegal occupations overseas receive tax subsidies here in this country. Recent investigations by Michael West Media revealed that a number of so-called charities operating in Australia are contributing to settlement projects and the illegal occupation of the West Bank by Israel. All these charities enjoy DGR status, allowing them to receive tax-deductible donations. The fact that people are sending money to support the war crimes of the Israeli military and to expand illegal violent settlements in the West Bank is bad enough—it is very bad—but that Australian taxpayers are subsidising these settlements and this violence is completely outrageous and unacceptable.

The West Bank is recognised by the Albanese government as illegally occupied. The State of Palestine, which includes the West Bank, is now formally recognised by the Albanese government, and yet Australian charities are subsidising the illegal occupation of Palestine, and the Labor government says, 'Well, you can also get a tax deduction for that illegal settlement.' These amendments would ban that once and for all. Supporting them should be not just a question of morality but of plain common sense. These amendments would strip an entity of DGR status if the entity has in any way, whether directly or indirectly, advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported, participated or contributed to the establishment, maintenance and expansion of an illegal occupation.

It's not just about land theft and occupation. Since October 2023, the IDF and Israeli settlers have murdered over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been displaced from their homes, and settlers have undertaken targeted destruction of olive groves and violence during the annual olive harvest to destroy any economic or agricultural opportunities for Palestinians in the West Bank. This is yet another example, and there are just too many now to count, of the complicity of this Labor government in Israel's genocide and apartheid and illegal settlement, even though it says it's against it. By maintaining DGR status for these organisations, the government is giving a very clear message that this violence is okay, and we are subsidising this violence. It's saying that these murders are okay, and we are subsidising these murders. It's saying that this ethnic cleansing is okay, and we are subsidising this ethnic cleansing. Supporting these heinous crimes deserves investigation, not tax deductions.

The International Court of Justice, in 2024, called on all party states such as Australia to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Despite recognising the illegality of Israel settlements in West Bank, in defiance of the international court, the Albanese government continues to allow, and even reward, charities who are providing for and profiting off these heinous crimes, these illegal settlements, under the DGR scheme.

The Albanese government has got its priorities all mixed up, all upside down. It says no to giving DGR status to life-saving animal welfare charities, but a big yes to subsidising charities supporting illegal occupations. Australian charities should not be supporting ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence and occupation, and they certainly should not be receiving a tax benefit for it—and, honestly, that should not even have to be said. The Labor government clearly wants to keep its head in the sand, to keep being embroiled in complicity in genocide and apartheid, and looks the other way. This is just another example of governments complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is two-faced and it is shameful for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction. Today is an opportunity for you to show, at a very basic level, that you will not be subsidising these violent, illegal settlements. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi, for moving the amendment. My understanding is that—I understand it wasn't Senator Faruqi who spoke about this last time; I think it might have been Senator Allman-Payne who made a similar point that Senator Gallagher responded to—the government will oppose this amendment moved by Senator Faruqi.

There is no DGR category or purpose that allows charities to support illegal activities at home or abroad. Registered charities also must ensure that they meet their ongoing obligations to the ACNC, including by complying with the ACNC's governance standards. 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 of funds, must also comply with the ACNC 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 is 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 who 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 charities to ensure their resources are only used to further their purposes and they are operating in a way consistent with a non-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 their access to DGR status and other tax concessions.

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

One Nation is generally supportive of the intent of this bill to protect adults from superannuation rorts and misrepresentations. However, we are not supportive of the dishonest provisions. In February 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.

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

I have a point of order on relevance. The question before the chair is Senator Faruqi's amendments in relation to DGR status and the prevention of DGR status for organisations that are engaged in facilitating illegal settlements in Palestine. It has nothing at all to do with Equality Australia.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator McKim. Senator Roberts, we are currently at amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3646. Are those the amendments you're seeking to speak to?

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

No, they are not. It's in general questions to the minister. I'll wait until these amendments have been moved.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3646 be agreed to.

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

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

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

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

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ghosh.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

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

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

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

Schedule 7 — Animal welfare gift deductibility expansion

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

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

Repeal the cell, substitute:

2 Application of amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Faruqi for moving the amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Again, I understand that Senator Shoebridge made similar comments when this was last in committee that Senator Gallagher responded to, but the government will be opposing these amendments. Certain animal welfare organisations are already eligible for DGR endorsement under the existing DGR general categories. For example, organisations with the principal purpose of short-term direct care or rehabilitation of animals—such as the Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service and Wildlife Recovery Australia—are endorsed as DGRs. Certain animal welfare organisations have also 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. They treat, protect and rehome animals, and they empower and educate communities to improve animal welfare across the country.

In 2023, the Albanese government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a review of philanthropy to identify opportunities and obstacles to increase 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 deductable gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim a tax deduction, which was recommendation 4.1; aligning and increasing the minimum annual redistribution rate for public and private ancillary funds, to be renamed giving funds, which was recommendation 8.1; and allowing funds distribution to be smoothed over three years, which was recommendation 8.2.

The government continues to consider its response to the PC report's recommendations on DGR reform. We have worked through these reforms with careful consideration, and we will continue to be guided by the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's Future foundations for giving and the sector led Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint as we work to double giving in Australia. Alongside these commitments, we've been working methodically to reform Australia's DGR system and support our charities. We have 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 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.

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

What a word salad from the minister there in response to a pretty clear proposal from the Australian Greens through Senator Faruqi. The problem is obvious here, which is that the definition of 'animal welfare work' under the Income Tax Assessment Act is too narrow. That is the problem here. As Senator Faruqi said, Australians abhor animal cruelty. If you were to go out onto the street—whether it's in Sydney, Geraldton, Darwin or Hobart, or anywhere in-between—and say to people, 'What do you think about animal cruelty?' you would get a near-unanimous response that it's abhorrent and that organisations that work to advocate for improved animal welfare standards and work to prevent animal cruelty should be eligible for DGR status. The fact that they are not is a clear and obvious problem in our statutes. It's a clear and obvious problem that can be remedied very simply and can actually be remedied today by this chamber supporting Senator Faruqi's amendments.

Animal welfare charities are consistently in the top three causes that Australian donors support. Those donations, of course, would increase if there were more animal welfare charities that had DGR status, therefore allowing for tax deductibility of donations. The minister has mentioned the Productivity Commission review, but they actually did recommend expanding tax deductible gift recipient status to include animal welfare advocacy charities. We heard Senator Roberts's contribution, which, again, was vile and discriminatory and divisive and dangerous, but he referred to Equality Australia. The minister quite rightly got up and explained why Equality Australia should have DGR status, and the Greens strongly support Equality Australia having DGR status. But some of the same arguments that the minister outlined in relation to Equality Australia could equally apply to many of the organisations which the Greens, through these amendments moved by Senator Faruqi, are attempting to ensure do have DGR status. The same arguments could well apply around, for example, advocacy.

So we say to the minister and to Labor that if it's good enough for Equality Australia—which it is; the Greens strongly support this, and we look forward to the passage of this bill through the Senate today to give Equality Australia, an outstanding organisation who does really important work, DGR status—this is an opportunity to make sure a number of other organisations who do really important and critical work in the animal welfare field also have DGR status.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3645 be agreed to.