Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:52): I offer on behalf of the Australian Greens our support for this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill. As colleagues would know, schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to limit advertising of superannuation funds, during employee onboarding, to APRA regulated funds.

This is an important reform that will protect workers from being influenced to join unsuitable superannuation products when they commence a new job. This has been more delayed than it needed to be. Last year, Labor failed to include these changes as part of the payday superannuation bill, despite these changes being part of the exposure draft of that bill.

We moved a second reading amendment to that legislation here in the Senate and obtained the government's support for that amendment, which called on Labor to honour their previous commitment to introduce legislation to regulate the advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding, commencing on 1 July this year. So we are pleased that we are here debating this today.

We acknowledge particularly the Super Members Council and Super Consumers Australia, who have fought the good fight and kept the pressure on Labor to introduce these reforms. I want to speak quickly about some of the amendments that have been circulated in relation to this legislation—in particular to schedule 5, which grants DGR status to several organisations.

The Greens are going to support that provision, but I want to make the point that we need to see some broader reforms to deductible gift recipient eligibility. I want to commend my colleague Senator Faruqi for her advocacy in this space and for the amendments that she has circulated in relation to that schedule. The amendments on sheet 3646 remove DGR status for organisations that have supported in any way, directly or indirectly, an illegal occupation.

We know, for example, that there are Zionist charities in Australia with DGR status who are funnelling funds that they've raised in this country back to the IDF and back to illegal settlements in places like the West Bank. It is beyond outrageous that the Australian taxpayer is effectively subsidising funds that are being sent back to the IDF, which is currently engaged in a genocide in Gaza and which is currently perpetrating an illegal war against Iran.

There is simply no argument for the Australian taxpayer to be indirectly funding those activities by offering DGR status to a group raising money here and funnelling the money back to the IDF and to illegal settlements in the West Bank. I don't expect the government to support this amendment because—let's face it—Labor's cheering on an illegal war. It was the first government in the world to come out and cheer on Israel and the United States in their illegal war against Iran.

But this amendment does give effect to Australia's international obligations—notably its obligations to the International Court of Justice, which in 2024 called on party states, including Australia, to 'prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory'. So that is what the Greens are doing today.

We've been forced to step up and do this because of the vacuum left by Labor, which is refusing to act in accordance with this country's international obligations—specifically, to the International Court of Justice. The amendments on sheet 3645, in Senator Faruqi's name, seek to widen DGR status eligibility to include animal welfare advocacy organisations. The critical issue here is that the ATO's definition of 'animal welfare' is too narrow, and, as a result, many important areas of animal welfare work are excluded.

They're not captured by that definition. As a result of that, the majority of animal welfare organisations actually miss out on DGR status, which, of course, impacts on their capacity to raise funds. Some areas of animal welfare work that currently don't qualify for DGR status include rehoming wild animals, disaster and crisis emergency response for animals, and animal welfare advocacy.

I'm going to take a plunge here and say there wouldn't be a single senator in this place who wouldn't support organisations doing work such as rehoming wild animals, for example, when there's roadkill. My home state is the roadkill capital of the country. In terms of rehoming wild animals when there's roadkill and there's a young animal in the pouch, that animal needs to be, firstly, looked after in terms of crisis response and, secondly and ultimately, if it's able to be, rehomed into the wild.

But those efforts by charities are not supported by DGR status. I'm also going to take a plunge and suggest that advocating for animal welfare is something that every senator in this place would support, and yet advocating for animal welfare, because of the narrowness of the ATO definition that I mentioned earlier, does not qualify for DGR status. The animal welfare advocacy sector has long called for this issue to be addressed and resolved.

I don't know why the government won't do it, but we are giving the Senate a chance today to act in support of organisations that rehome wild animals, provide disaster and crisis emergency response for animals and engage in animal welfare advocacy. I also want to address a couple of amendments that have been circulated by other senators and other parties in this place, in particular those on sheet 3682, under Senator Chandler's name, which seek to prevent the registered charity Equality Australia from getting specific listing as a deductible gift recipient, which is proposed in this legislation.

I do note in passing that none of the other five registered charities that this bill proposes to give DGR status to are in Senator Chandler's crosshairs. It is simply Equality Australia. For those that don't know, Equality Australia advocates on behalf of LGBTIQA+ Australians, and it's particularly disappointing that Senator Chandler, a senator from Tasmania, as I am, is having a go at an organisation that represents nearly five per cent of her constituency; 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians identify as LGBTIQA+.

We know that Senator Chandler has had a late-life conversion to fighting for women's sport, and we all know that that is code for transphobic activities. We all know that. I suspect that that late-life, or late-political-life, conversion owes far more to Senator Chandler trying to climb the greasy pole inside the coalition than it does to any genuinely held views of hers.

Senator Scarr: I've a point of order in terms of impugning the character or motivations of Senator Chandler. Notwithstanding my admiration for Senator McKim's advocacy, I think that was a step too far, and I think he should withdraw. Senator McKIM: I withdraw.

But I do want to make the point that 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians, which is the percentage of Tasmanians that identify as LGBTIQA+, is more people than the population of Burnie, which is the fourth-largest town in Tasmania. Senator Chandler is coming in here today and basically saying to a group of people in her home state—a state that she is supposed to represent in this place and a group that has more people than the fourth-largest city in Tasmania—that an organisation that represents them and that advocates for them extremely effectively, I might add, does not deserve DGR status.

There is barely a front that the coalition will not engage on to try and fight the culture wars. We're seeing it with their attempts to deny Australian women and Australian children who are currently in Syria the support they need in order to safely return to our country, and here we are again today facing amendments from Senator Chandler that seek to deny DGR status to an organisation that represents and advocates for around 22,000 Tasmanians as well as the many, many hundreds of thousands of other Australians who identify as LGBTIQA+.

I do note that One Nation have circulated a similar amendment to Senator Chandler, and I will say to the opposition that, when you find yourself lining up with One Nation on issues around a fair go for LGBTIQA+ Australians, you know you're on the wrong path—or you should know you're on the wrong path. Senator Roberts might think it's funny, but we know that One Nation regularly come into this place and seek to demonise queer folk and—in particular, I might say—trans folk knowing full well that, as a collective, trans folk are amongst some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

They are a group of people who deserve our love and our support, not our hatred, and who absolutely do not deserve to be thrown under the bus in the never-ending culture wars in this country. We know what Senator Roberts and his colleagues in One Nation have got in terms of a track record of transphobia. Frankly, I don't think that will ever change, and I don't expect we'll ever see anything different from One Nation.

I think transphobia is baked into who they are. But, honestly, there are good people in the opposition who shouldn't be fighting this front of the culture wars in this way, in a coalition of the nasty with One Nation. We, I'm sure it is clear, will not be supporting either Senator Chandler's amendment or the One Nation amendment.

We will proudly vote with the government to ensure that Equality Australia does receive DGR status, and I say to all LGBTIQA+ Australians: the Greens will always have your back.