Maria Kovacic

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time allotted for debate on the bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will deal with the remaining amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3681, 3686, 3688, 3689, 3691 and 3693 be agreed to. To clarify, as the One Nation amendments on sheet 3683 are identical to opposition amendments negatived earlier today, the question on the One Nation amendments will not be put.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3681

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 28) to page 6 (line 8), omit paragraphs 992AB(4)(d) and (e), substitute:

(d) the requirement in either subsection (4A) or (4B) is satisfied; and

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (after line 13), after subsection 992AB(4), insert:

(4A) The requirement in this subsection is satisfied if:

(a) the advertisement or statement occurs after the time the employer, or the employer's agent, makes a request (the stapled fund request) under subsection 32R(1) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 in relation to the employee; and

(b) if, in response to the stapled fund request, the employer is notified under subsection 32R(2) of that Act that the Commissioner is satisfied that there is a stapled fund for the employee—the advertisement or statement occurs at or after the time the employer, or the employer's agent, notifies the employee:

(i) that the Commissioner is satisfied that there is a stapled fund for the employee; and

(ii) about the details that the employer was notified about in relation to the stapled fund request under subparagraph 32R(2)(b)(ii) of that Act.

(4B) The requirement in this subsection is satisfied if:

(a) the advertisement or statement occurs after the time the employer, or the employer's agent, makes a request (the regulated fund request) under subsection (4C) in relation to the employee; and

(b) if, in response to the regulated fund request, the employer is advised under subsection (4D) of a regulated superannuation fund of which the employee is a member—the advertisement or statement occurs at or after the time the employer, or the employer's agent, notifies the employee about the information the employer was advised about under subsection (4D) in relation to the regulated fund request.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), the employer, or the employer's agent, may request a trustee of a complying superannuation fund or scheme (within the meaning of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992) to identify any regulated superannuation fund of which the employee is a member.

(4D) If a trustee receives a request under subsection (4C) and the trustee is aware that the employee is a member of a particular regulated superannuation fund, the trustee may advise in writing the employer or the employer's agent (as applicable) of the following information:

(a) the regulated superannuation fund of which the employee is a member;

(b) details necessary for the employer to make contributions to that fund for the benefit of the employee.

_____

SHEET 3686

(1) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 Review of operation of amendments

Requirement to conduct review

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by this Schedule.

Matters review must consider

(2) Without limiting subitem (1), the review must consider any impact of the amendments on the following:

(a) duplicate superannuation accounts;

(b) competition between superannuation funds;

(c) member engagement;

(d) compliance costs for employers and service providers.

Timing of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before the end of 2 years after the commencement of this item.

(4) For the purposes of subitem (3), the review is completed on the day after the day the report of the review is given to the Minister.

Minister to be given report of review

(5) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3688

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (line 30), omit "Note:", substitute "Note 1:"

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (after line 30), after the note, insert:

Note 2: To avoid doubt, nothing in this subsection prohibits an advertisement or statement that would not be expected to induce an employee to choose a superannuation product, such as an advertisement or statement generally referring employees to the YourSuper comparison tool on the Australian Taxation Office website.

_____

SHEET 3689

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (after line 23), at the end of section 992AB, add:

Date of effect of section

(6) This section takes effect on a day specified in an instrument under subsection (7).

(7) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a day for the purposes of subsection (6).

(8) However, the Minister must not specify a day unless and until the Minister is satisfied that such arrangements and systems are in place as would ensure the Commissioner of Taxation is able to respond to all requests under subsection 32R(1) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 with sufficient certainty as to:

(a) whether there is a stapled fund for an employee; and

(b) any details required to be notified under subparagraph 32R(2)(b)(ii) of that Act.

(9) The specified day must not be later than 3 months after the day the Minister is first satisfied as required by subsection (8).

_____

SHEET 3691

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedule 2", substitute "Schedules 2 and 2A".

(2) Page 6 (after line 26), after Schedule 2, insert:

Schedule 2A — Annual performance reporting for stapled fund requests

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992

1 At the end of section 32R

Add:

Annual reporting

(4) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare a report on the Commissioner's activities under this section during the financial year.

(5) The report must (without limitation):

(a) include statistics of the following:

(i) requests received by the Commissioner under subsection (1) to identify stapled funds for employees;

(ii) notifications given by the Commissioner under subsection (2) in response to such requests and the time taken to provide such responses;

(iii) changes made by the Commissioner under subsection (3) to earlier notifications; and

(b) consider whether, and to what extent, the Commissioner was able to accurately:

(i) identify stapled funds for employees in response to requests under subsection (1); and

(ii) notify the details required by subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) in relation to such requests; and

(c) consider the effectiveness of requests and responses under this section for the purposes of the operation of subsection 992AB(4) (about exceptions for certain MySuper products to the ban on advertising superannuation products during onboarding) of the Corporations Act 2001; and

(d) any other matters the Minister directs the report to consider.

(6) The Commissioner must give a copy of the report to the Minister by no later than 30 September after the end of the financial year to which the report relates.

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3693

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (after line 23), after section 992AB, insert:

992AC Guidance for ban on superannuation product advertising during onboarding

(1) ASIC must develop and publish guidance about compliance with section 992AB, including the operation of the prohibition in subsection (1), and the exceptions in subsections (2) to (5), of that section.

(2) The guidance must (without limitation):

(a) set out an intended approach to the administration of that section in both the short and long term; and

(b) include examples of:

(i) conduct that may contravene the prohibition; and

(ii) circumstances that may be covered by the exceptions.

(3) The first guidance under subsection (1) must be published before the end of 30 days after the commencement of this section.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

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

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

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

Maria Kovacic

Senator Ghosh.

Varun Ghosh

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

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

Malcolm Roberts

I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

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

Anthony Chisholm

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

Malcolm Roberts

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

Anthony Chisholm

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

Malcolm Roberts

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

Anthony Chisholm

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

Mehreen Faruqi

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

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

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

Schedule 7 — Animal welfare gift deductibility expansion

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

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

Repeal the cell, substitute:

2 Application of amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long debate text truncated.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be put following 60 minutes of consideration; and

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.

Varun Ghosh

The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill now be passed.

Varun Ghosh

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Bridget McKenzie

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's failure on fuel security, as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the government's failure on fuel security.

For those following along at home and for those who may be sitting in the tractor, this suspension motion is all about allowing the Senate to debate the government's failure to manage our fuel security, which has resulted in fuel shortages and price increases right around the country. You will have heard senators on the coalition benches today asking question after question after question and all week raising specific issues of shortages and price hikes for the Australian people. Whether we are talking about croppers in WA, which is the leader's home state, who are trying to fill tractors and harvesters right now and are unable to get the fuel they need to get the crop in and the crop off—this is an issue of fuel security.

As Senator McDonald will go to in her contribution to this suspension motion, the horticulture industry in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania is struggling to get diesel into the tractors that are needed to actually get the harvest off. What have we seen from this government on this issue? We've seen deflection after deflection after deflection. What did they do last week? Here's the big news story! Jim Chalmers wrote a letter to the ACCC whilst there were cars lined up at suburban servos. They were trying to fill the tank before it became unaffordable. This is not like deciding to buy camembert at the supermarket. Fuel means that families can get their kids to school and get themselves to and from work. It is not an elastic good in the weekly shopping budget, yet this government thought it was okay.

What made that so galling last week was the fuel price hikes at servos were for fuel that was already onshore. It was here already in Australia prior to the war in the Middle East starting. That's what made it so galling. You should have been prosecuting servos from day one, Jim Chalmers, instead of just writing letters to the ACCC. This week, when the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister King, my counterpart in the other place, was questioned about this, what was Minister King's answer as to why we are seeing fuel shortages and price hikes on diesel and petrol? She told the journos it was the Queensland floods. The Queensland floods were why you couldn't rock up to your local servo and get the tank filled. It was just incredible.

Shadow Minister Tehan and I have written to Minister Bowen because minister after minister—to specific question after question seeking to raise the concerns of everyday Australians, the fishing industry and the agriculture and mining industries here on the floor of the Senate—has said: 'We have enough supply, Australia. You are naughty, naughty consumers rushing to the bowser to get petrol and diesel that you can afford. How dare you get concerned that you won't have access to fuel when and where you might need it! How dare you ring in to 2GB, 3AW, 6PR or your local radio station and say, "Petrol has gone to $2.20," or "Petrol has gone to $2.50," or "Fuel has gone to three bucks."'

New South Wales farmers have raised their concerns. There are petrol stations in regional communities rationing, and it didn't start today. It's been happening all week, and we've got a government once again in denial on what's happening outside of this place. It is our job, as Liberal and National Party senators, to bring the concerns of our communities to this place and to ask ministers, who have the responsibility and the great privilege to be ministers, 'What are you doing about it?' That you say you can't do anything about it shows how absolutely pathetic you are.

You refuse to take responsibility. We know you actually have the ability under the legislation available to get granular data. Chris Bowen has the ability to get granular data on his desk so he can know where the fuel supplies are running out and he can distribute them to where they're needed so that Australians aren't paying more for fuel than they need to—on top of the cost-of-living crisis you created—and so our farmers and our fishers can get on with producing food. (Time expired)

Penny Wong

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong on closure be agreed to.