Fatima Payman

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 37, agreed to on 28 July 2025, relating to the development of legislative instruments for the social media ban,

(ii) in a letter relating to a subsequent order requiring the tabling of an explanation of the basis for the minister's public interest immunity claim, the Minister for Communications advised that no further information is available regarding the claim, and

(iii) no further information has been provided since the Minister representing the Minister for Communications' attendance of the Senate on 29 October 2025; and

(b) requires that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by 5 pm on 17 April 2026, any documents that would have been within the scope of the order and that were created between the initial response to the order on 13 August 2025 and 10 March 2026, inclusive.

Slade Brockman

The question before the chair is that general business notice of motion No. 403 be agreed to.,

Slade Brockman

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

Mehreen Faruqi

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Claire Chandler

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

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

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

Slade Brockman

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.

Varun Ghosh

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senators David Pocock and Tyrrell. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3694 be agreed to.

Senators David Pocock and Tyrell's circulated amendment s

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 26 and 27), omit subsection 84B(8).

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 32) to page 6 (line 2), omit subsection 84B(10), substitute:

(10) The Minister may exercise the power in subsection (1) only once in relation to:

(a) a particular event or circumstance; or

(b) a particular class of non-citizens.

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 84B, add:

(14) In this section:

event or circumstance means a conflict, natural disaster or significant emergency which increases or is likely to increase the risk that certain classes of temporary visa holders will not depart Australia when their visas cease to be in effect.

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 6), after "de facto partner", insert ", parent, grandparent, sibling or step equivalent".

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 20), after subsection 84C(4), insert:

(4A) An arrival control determination does not apply in relation to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time, the non-citizen is currently in transit travelling to Australia under a temporary or visitor visa.

(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 21), omit "(3) and (4)", substitute "(3), (4) and (4A)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 16 and 17), omit subsection 84D(7).

(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 84D(8).

(13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 28), after subsection 84E(2), insert:

(2A) If a temporary visa held by a non-citizen comes into effect again because of subsection (2):

(a) the visa is extended by a period equal to the period for which it was not in effect because of the relevant arrival control determination; and

(b) the Minister must seek advice as to what compensation should be paid to the non-citizen.

(14) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (before line 29), before subsection 84E(3), insert:

(2B) If an arrival control determination applies to a non-citizen, the Commonwealth must compensate the non-citizen in full for any travel, visa processing and other reasonable related costs incurred by the non-citizen because of the determination.

Varun Ghosh

Pursuant to the order agreed earlier today, the time allotted for debate has expired. I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3696 and 3699 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments

SHEET 3696

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

(2) Page 11, after line 5, at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Enabling Resolution of Status visa applications by transitory persons

Migration Act 1958

1 After subsection 46B(1)

Insert:

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application for a visa classified by the regulations as a Resolution of Status (Class CD) visa if the application is made by a transitory person who is in Australia.

_____

SHEET 3699

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

Fatima Payman

At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent black, brown, Muslim and Arab people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".

Question negatived.

I wish to note my support for that amendment.

David Shoebridge

by leave—I also note the Greens' support for that amendment.

Tammy Tyrrell

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".

Varun Ghosh

The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3701 moved by Senator Tyrrell be agreed to.

David Pocock

Decisions on when people are able and not able to enter Australia are some of the most important decisions we make as a country. They affect liberty, families, livelihoods and safety. For that reason alone, any proposal to expand or reshape these powers deserves the most careful scrutiny from this parliament. As a number of experts, advocates and community organisations have pointed out, this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, contains complex and far-reaching provisions that would significantly alter our migration framework. Yet this bill has been brought forward with limited opportunity for proper examination.

Members of the crossbench were given the bill at 11 am on Tuesday, and here we are in a guillotine sometime this afternoon, being forced to vote on significant changes just two days later. I fear that this is not what Australians sent us here to do. In the short time available, a number of very significant concerns have been raised.

First, there are concerns about the breadth of the powers that would be created. Migration legislation already grants extraordinary powers to the executive compared with most other areas of Australian law. When new powers are proposed, the parliament has a responsibility to ask whether they are necessary, whether they are proportionate and whether they are subject to appropriate safeguards.

Second, there are concerns about transparency and accountability. Several provisions in the bill appear to concentrate huge amounts of discretion in the hands of the minister without sufficient oversight or review mechanisms. That raises real questions about how these powers might operate in practice and what protections will exist for those that are affected. I think, if we zoom out, this is a really important thing to look at. Look around the world. We're seeing what leaders and their executives are doing in their countries to their people. As a Senate and as a parliament, we need to take giving the executive of the day any more power very seriously. Rather than handing more extraordinary powers in perpetuity to the executive, those powers need to be justified and well thought through.

Third, there are concerns about the potential human consequences of these changes. Migration decisions shape the lives of those affected—students, workers, families and people seeking protection, many of whom have or seek to build lives in our communities. These concerns have been raised by migration experts and civil society groups who work directly with the people most affected by these laws. Their warnings deserve to be heard and taken seriously by this place.

It is also important that the parliament listens to the people we represent. Many Canberrans have contacted my office about this bill. Canberra is a community that values transparency. It values parliamentary scrutiny and the rule of law. People here understand that Australia needs a well-managed migration system, but they also expect that system to be humane, accountable and consistent with our values. The concerns raised are reasonable and reflect the broader expectations that Australians have, that their parliament will be cautious when legislating in areas that affect fundamental rights and freedoms.

Given that we are increasingly unlikely to have any time in committee, I foreshadow that I'll be moving amendments to this bill. These amendments build on the work of my colleagues in the other place, the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall; the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney; and the member for Kooyong, Dr Monique Ryan. They would strengthen the preconditions before the Home Affairs minister could make an arrival control determination to stop a group, such as a group of Iranians fleeing conflict, from entering Australia. They would provide natural justice for those prevented from entering the country so that they could challenge that decision. They would make the decision to prevent groups of people entering the country disallowable by the parliament. Surely this is the base level of oversight on what are extraordinary powers. Again, let's look at what is happening with some of our closest allies, at what is happening in the US with the executive and the harm that that is inflicting on people over there. We cannot go down that path of giving the executive unfettered powers.

The amendments would clarify the circumstances in which cohorts of people would be prevented from entering the country. One of my concerns with the migration changes that have been rushed through by the Labor government, backed in by the coalition and rammed through the parliament in the space of days over the past few years is just how loose some of the definitions are and how much discretion is built into these laws. You sometimes hear governments say, 'We need to futureproof this so it can't be abused by a future minister.' There seems no foresight on that possibility when it comes to migration changes.

The amendments would also ensure that parents, grandparents, siblings and partners of Australian citizens are not prevented from entering the country, even if they are a member of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering. We are dealing with the loved ones of Australian citizens, and this is a very blunt instrument. Surely, the least we can do is say, 'If you are an Australian citizen, we will at least be looking out for you and your family'? That would ensure that people in transit and on their way to the country are not prevented from entering because a decision was made while they were in transit. Surely that is also just common decency? They would ensure that the Minister for Home Affairs considers whether to allow individuals to enter the country even where they are members of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering and they would ensure that, where people are prevented from entering the country, their visas do not expire because of the prevention and they may be compensated for travel, visa processing and related costs. We have some of the highest visa application fees in the world. As a wealthy country, surely the least we could do is provide people a refund for taking this extraordinary action?

These are comprehensive amendments, and their breadth speaks to the huge issues with this bill. I understand the intent of the bill is to preserve the integrity of the humanitarian intake program. However, after considering the provisions of the bill in the short time available and listening to experts in my community, listening to Canberrans who I represent and vote on behalf of in this place, it's clear that this bill has significant shortcomings and that it should not be supported. This bill should not become law today, and I will be opposing it.

Australia's migration system must be effective, but it must also be fair and accountable. That is the standard the public expects us to deliver. It is the standard this parliament should actually seek to uphold. This bill does not meet that standard, and it certainly does not have my support.

I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency in the government's approach to dealing with laws and humanitarian crises around the world. There was absolutely no talk of this sort of legislation after Russia invaded Ukraine. We saw a far more generous approach, and I've met a number of Ukrainians who now live in Canberra and are contributing and who are grateful for the opportunity that we've given them. So it is very concerning that we now have a government that, under the cover of giving humanitarian visas to brave football players from Iran, is bringing this to the parliament. As I said earlier, I commend Minister Burke for his work with the Iranian women's team. I think it shows what Australia can and should be doing. It shows a minister who deeply cares, a minister who is in touch with what Australians want, a minister who is willing to go out of his way, to drop everything else, to actually rise to the occasion and deliver for people who need our support and for Australians. I fear that, at the same time that is rightly being shared on social media and rightly being covered in the media, we have this heinous bill being brought through here.

We should maybe do a tally. Maybe we can talk about this in the next sitting of the Senate. How many Labor MPs and senators post about this bill? How many of them front up to the community that they are meant to be representing and say: 'We saw what's happening in Iran, so we're giving ourselves the powers to cancel every single visa that we've issued. Yes, we already have extraordinary powers to cancel visas on security grounds and on character grounds—on a whole range of grounds—but that's not enough. Forever, going forward, we want the power, for some undefined events, to say, "No visas from that country—sorry if you paid money for the visa; sorry if you're on your way here; sorry if you're in transit; sorry if you're coming for the birth of a granddaughter or for your sister's wedding; we don't give a stuff because we do not want to give a visa to anyone from the country you come from."'

We can surely do better than this. It feels so ridiculous that this is what the Senate is debating—and, again, under the cover of a government that knows that Australians care. You know that Aussies care, that we have big hearts, that we see the suffering and we say, 'We're not the biggest country; we're a middle power; we can't stop the war, but we can play our part.' Increasingly, I don't think we're seeing those values being lived out. We talk about the land of a fair go, but this doesn't seem like it. This really does not seem like it.

I urge the government to think again when it comes to this. Let's actually come up with a consistent framework when it comes to conflicts. That's surely something we could be doing. Increasingly, I'm getting Canberrans ask me about that and say, 'Why was there such a discrepancy between the war in Ukraine—Gaza, Iran—and our response?' These are Australian citizens' families and loved ones. Honestly, we've got to do better than this.

I oppose this bill. I'll be moving amendments to try and make it a little bit better. I thank my colleagues in the other place who have, in a very short space of time, consulted, spoken to experts and had amendments drafted to try and make this terrible bill better, fairer and clearer and, importantly, to put some more checks on the executive. Yes, Labor have a whopping majority in the other house, but to the coalition I say: this is the place where we should not give up power to the executive, not just in this instance but in perpetuity. That is a very serious thing to grant to government, and it's my view that whenever we do that it should be very well thought out, consulted on and scrutinised. Then, in circumstances that warrant it, we should hand over that power. It doesn't seem like this is that situation. This is rushed. It's a knee jerk. Again, I see some of the arguments, but I just don't think they've been well enough made, so I'll be opposing this bill.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

Nita Green

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

David Shoebridge

We had hoped that this could be repaired in committee. If the Lambie amendment had been adopted, we would have supported this bill because it would have done clear good. But for the reasons we made clear, in particular, the veto being given to security agencies—you only get one chance to fix this kind of legislation, and this bill is not doing what's needed, so we won't be supporting the third reading.

Dorinda Cox

The question before the chair is the third reading of the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026.