Posts

Taxes, Traps and Tactics in the 2026 Budget

,

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 represent a cynical, ideological attack on everyday Australians under the guise of intergenerational equity. Instead of fostering wealth creation, Labor is driving a strategy of division to fund social engineering and buy votes.

We support the modest tax cuts and the $1,000 deduction placeholder. What we don’t support is the harmful capital gains tax and negative gearing measures.

Labor relies on “poison pills” — packaging toxic tax grabs alongside popular measures to deceive the public.

One Nation is committed to fighting for smaller government, protecting essential services and allowing Australians to keep their hard-earned money and secure their financial future.

Transcript

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget was a victory of ideology over decency. The fundamental ideology of this Labor government is one which ignores wealth creation in favour of wealth redistribution and division, otherwise known as buying votes with other people’s money. This is a deliberate strategy of division or, more accurately, a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Implicit in this strategy is a simple maxim: ‘It doesn’t matter how much hate you get from those whose votes you don’t need.’ It’s callous policy, cynical, dishonest and in the end self-defeating, as every communist government in history has found out the hard way. When you take people’s stuff, they stop creating new stuff and the nation descends into poverty—time after time after time. 

Despite the lesson of history, here we are with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which rakes in $1.38 billion in additional taxation in the first full year, 2027-28. This is a tax grab. This is before the $350 million backdown announced last week. How badly does this government need that money to take the electoral criticism they’ve received over a measure which is 0.2 per cent of budget revenue? 

This bill takes from those who have created wealth to buy votes from those who have not yet created wealth—our young. And yet, according to the Productivity Commission and updated JBWere financial modelling, an estimated $3.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion in assets will pass from Baby Boomers to younger generations through to 2050. The speed of the transfer is increasing. Inheritances have more than doubled since 2002. Wealth passing between generations has risen from roughly $120 billion per year to an expected $500 billion per year in 2045. This government is trying to buy votes amongst young people with money they would have received anyway. That’s the fatal flaw in this bill—the lie, the deceit. It’s these trillions of dollars in inheritance that have become the grand prize of this communist Labor government’s theft. 

Labor wants to steal more of everyone’s money, including from the young, and lock the young out of building assets for later in life. Lock you out! Labor’s intergenerational equity and intergenerational wealth transfer lies will in fact really create intergenerational poverty—a veritable gold mine of money from taxing everyone for Labor and its bureaucrats to use to bankroll Labor’s social engineering and to buy votes from their target demographics, which, for the record, are ABC journalists, university academics, immigrants from any country as long as it’s not a Christian country and union bosses, although only the militant kind. Not only will our young people receive less in the long run, they will receive less in the short term, owing to changes in the capital gains tax. Previously, any capital gain was discounted 50 per cent and then taxed as part of your normal income. This meant young people just starting out did not pay a lot of tax, especially those trading while at uni or TAFE. Not anymore. Now the full value of the profit will be taxed and at a minimum rate of 30 per cent, not your marginal rate. Even worse, more value trades and assets like trading cards or parts of a bitcoin over $500 are now treated the same for compliance purposes as large stocks portfolios. Do you have a $500 Pokemon card? Congratulations! Here’s the compliance you’ll need to meet, including valuations and notifications for a Pokemon card, you evil capitalist you. Off to the re-education camp you go. There will be none of this ‘trying to get ahead’ under this Labor government. The deceit of this government to pretend this bill is about intergenerational wealth when the real impact will be to make it harder for young people to get ahead—that’s why the budget has been called the worst in living memory. Not only were the key measures toxic, the justification for taking those measures was a lie. It doesn’t add wealth and opportunity for young people. It takes it away. Everyone except rusted-on Labor diehards saw straight through it. Our young have seen through it, and baby boomers are furious. They didn’t work their whole lives to create wealth just so the government could come along and take a massive chunk to fund social engineering. 

One Nation’s response to these measures is simple: don’t do it. Let Australians create their own wealth and use that wealth to benefit their children. For many Australians, the bank of mum and dad is in play to help young people get their own home. Assistance from parents has risen from 15 per cent of new mortgages in the 1980s to 40 per cent of new mortgages today. I know when I mention family that a lot of our constituents will be thinking, ‘I don’t have a family, since my parents got divorced and my parents lost their house in the divorce. What do you have to pass on?’ I acknowledge those who are in that position. Your feelings and concerns are real. One Nation understands that, which is why our low-start mortgage will allow your personal superannuation account to provide a large share of your home deposit. This will allow you to get into your own home once you have a job, a work history and proven capacity to repay. 

When it comes to the broader policy environment, including taxation and regulation, the response to Senator Hanson’s amazing speech at the GetUp! press club in Canberra last week carries a warning. Our opponents will spin One Nation’s policies and words so far, so tightly that Pauline Hanson could knit a sweater with them. Our policies do take a moment of serious thought to grasp. On one hand, One Nation policy does contain measures which need to be funded through some level of taxation. We will support and defend Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, aged pensions and the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those who are actually disabled, along with unemployment benefits for those looking for work and sickness benefits for those who legitimately can’t work, amongst other measures. These are what make Australia a civilised society. 

On the other hand, our campaign for smaller government is based on an overarching principle of allowing Australians to keep more of their own money and providing an economic environment that encourages people to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour. This is not an absolutist argument. It’s one of degree—a balance between a government of decency and a government of waste. The Chalmers-Albanese government has crossed over the line out of decency into waste and hypocrisy and deceit, and, as a result, One Nation ranks are swelling. Labor obviously feel that entrepreneurs are not their demographic. You show that repeatedly. Interestingly, a large number of small-business people coming into One Nation are saying the same thing about the Liberals. ALP arrogance has been on display in the development of these proposals. No open consultation occurred and no white papers. The measures were drawn up behind closed doors and then dumped on the public, vomited onto the public. The committee stage for this bill was a farce engineered to manipulate a favourable report—deceit yet again. 

This Labor government has made a mockery of the committee system across legislation, referrals and Senate estimates to the point where a review is needed to find a way to stop this abuse from ever happening again. The government has been forced to remove some of the worst elements of their tax grab. Great—now remove the rest! 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 includes a provision to limit negative gearing to new properties only. Negative gearing allows someone on a wage or salary to buy a second property, or more, and claim the net cost of that property against their tax. Any net profit is considered taxable income—it’s taxed. Many Australians have used this method to get ahead. It’s most common in retirement, with couples purchasing their retirement home near retirement and then renting it out to help pay it off until they’re ready to move in. Then they rent out their family home to fund their retirement. 

It’s true that this is a concession which tends to be used at higher-income levels. Here are the facts. The top 20 per cent of wage and salary earners own 40 per cent of investment properties and claim 60 per cent of the tax deductions. Before this bill, there was no limit to the number of homes that a person could negatively gear other than the ability of their income to cover the cost. 

One Nation believes—our policy has shown this before today and shows this right now—that a large property portfolio is not something that should be set against a salary. It’s a business, and the person should have a corporate structure which is appropriate for that business. One Nation will limit negative gearing to two properties. This is enough for Australians to invest in real estate and lift themselves up without misusing the tax system. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, though, cancels negative gearing on existing homes entirely, and it allows unlimited negative gearing on new builds. So that older couple I mentioned before, buying their retirement home and renting it out to help pay for it—they can’t negatively gear. Yet a high-income earner can buy up a whole new block of flats and negatively gear that. Where’s the justice? How is that fair? How does that advance intergenerational equity? It doesn’t. It drives intergenerational poverty. 

There are two other measures in this bill. One Nation will support the $5-a-week tax cut. Although $250 a year is nothing towards offsetting the rising cost of living, it’s money better off in workers’ pockets than in the government’s pockets, where it’d be eaten up before it even gets into play in 2027. As a reminder, One Nation policy will put a lot more into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will index the tax thresholds to ensure nobody is forced into a higher tax bracket because they got a pay rise to make up for inflation. That’s the stealth tax. I’ve tried twice to amend Treasury bills, once under the Liberals and once under Labor. Both times, both parties said they loved the idea—but not now. 

One Nation will leave schedule 4 in the bill. That is the no-documentation-required $1,000 for tax deductible expenses. I’m concerned that people who are entitled to more than $1,000 will lazily tick that box to save time, although opposing what is a benefit for the many on the basis of what it could do for the few is the wrong decision. 

One Nation is moving an amendment to remove schedule 1, capital gains tax, and schedule 2, negative gearing, from the bill. If that amendment fails, we will oppose this bill. 

The Labor Party have taken to using a deceitful trick to make it look like One Nation opposed pay rises for workers, which is false. Instead, this is to add a measure to a bill which they know One Nation will not support. In this case, it’s the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes hurting the young and the old. It’s called a poison pill. It’s not their idea; the parties of globalisation around the world are using it to frame conservative parties as hateful of workers when the reverse is true. Tricks destroy trust and kill truth. Prime Minister Albanese gives so much material himself to the Fire the Liar campaign across the nation. Poison pills allow their fake ‘independent’ websites like They Vote For You to lie and say One Nation voted against tax cuts, for instance, when, in fact, the Albanese government wrapped the tax cuts in legislation that could not be supported—it had to be opposed. Labor refuses to put the measures separately. Had they put the measures separately, we would have supported the tax cut, minuscule though it is. Another Labor lie is its claim this bill is tax reform. It’s not. Instead it increases tax complexity, which leads to increased fees for accountants, lawyers and valuers when preparing tax returns for which the people pay. Taxpayers pay even more when doing their return. This is not reform; it’s a rip-off for which you, the people of Australia, pay—including the young. Anyone interested in honest political discussion should treat the OpenAustralia Foundation and their propaganda arm They Vote for You with utter contempt. Their subscribers apparently do, because their most recent report admits a $50,000 loss. It’s not working—perhaps try impartiality and honesty next time—nor is it having any effect. 

The growth of One Nation is proof the public are breaking what has been a lifelong allegiance to the tired old parties—yes, you two—and are instead embracing One Nation policies that will restore wealth and abundance for all Australians. Labor’s dirty tricks and lies will not stop One Nation from voting in the best interests of everyday Australians. We want to make Australia a land of abundance and opportunity again for the old and the young. 

/0 Comments/by

Delivering Tax Cuts, Not Taxes

This session is with Treasury’s Fiscal Group, the division tasked with delivering federal budgets, analysing fiscal policy, and ensuring efficient public spending. The group’s core duties span three main areas: budget production, managing financial arrangements and payments between the Commonwealth and States and Territories, and providing spending advice.

In this advisory role, the group guides portfolio ministers on government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas, including health, education, labour markets, infrastructure, and defence.

Coming from a business background, I always look for ways to streamline and reduce major costs, especially while everyday Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis. With that in mind, I asked for a complete accounting of the Albanese Labor Government’s net zero policies and measures, including departmental costs, grants, co-investments, spending to date, projections across forward estimates, and contingent or “off-the-books” liabilities (which reports suggest could reach a trillion dollars).

Mr White noted this was a massive query not fully covered by Budget Paper No. 1, so I asked Treasury to take it on notice.

I also asked for the costs since 1 July 2022 (plus forward estimates) of federal agencies or departments duplicating services where constitutional authority rests with the states, particularly in areas like health, education and the environment.

Despite concerns raised by Treasury and Minister Gallagher regarding the scope of the requests and the distinction between federal and state roles, I reiterated that reducing government waste is vital. Given the cost-of-living pressure on Australian households, the focus should be on delivering tax cuts and cutting expenditure rather than raising taxes.

In business, identifying and then cutting unnecessary duplication is a huge opportunity to reduce spending and ease the burden on taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I asked these questions of the previous group, the Markets Group, and they recommended that I ask you. Could I just check, please, because it seems like you’re perfect for it, that the Fiscal Group is a core division within the Australian Treasury responsible for delivering government budgets, analysing fiscal policy and ensuring efficient public spending.  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It works to achieve sound fiscal outcomes through structural policy advice, coordinating the federal budget and managing financial transfers to states and territories—correct?  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Key responsibilities—three of them—are budget production; Commonwealth-state relations, managing the timely and accurate payments and financial arrangements between the federal government and the states and territories; and spending advice. It advises portfolio ministers on whole-of-economy government spending regulations and resource allocation across policy areas like health, education, labour market, infrastructure and defence—correct?  

Mr White: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to being in business—companies, small business and large corporations— where we look at our costs, especially our bigger costs, and try to work out ways to improve them, so that’s what I’d like to ask you about. There are two big costs. Could you tell me, please, what are the full costs across the breadth of the Albanese Labor government of net zero measures, net zero policies, including departmental costs, co-investments and grants. Also include a figure for contingent liabilities, including off-the-books matters, which I’ve seen referenced in mainstream media as potentially a trillion-dollar liability. Could you please include spending to date as well as projections across forward estimates. Are you the people?  

Mr White: That’s a very large question.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a very large cost, in fact.  

Mr White: We don’t have that in front of us. Budget Paper No. 1, page 121, has an appendix B that goes to this, but not in the way you’re asking the question. It has some information about net zero transformation and net zero spending measures, but they’re really new measures, not the whole of the government. Answering that question would take quite some time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr White: We can.  

Ms P Brown: I might just point you towards paragraph 1 on page 124, which provides similar information that is there for this budget but gives the figures in previous budgets, so you can look at those numbers and see the impact over time.  

Mr White: Yes. If we took it on notice, we’d have to work out what we can do. It might not be an easy thing to pull together in that way, but we could look.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Take it on notice. Second, you’re involved in allocating money to the states. Could you please provide the costs since 1 July 2022 of any Commonwealth department or agency which duplicates agencies existing in the territories and the states and for which the constitutional mandate for that power vests with the states, not the Commonwealth. Could you please include data through forward estimates.  

Mr White: That’s possibly an even bigger question than the first one.  

Ms P Brown: I don’t know how we would do it.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a huge opportunity.  

Ms P Brown: What are you specifically after? Is it whether there are similar functions being done at the Commonwealth level as at the state level?  

Senator ROBERTS: The states have responsibility for certain services, and the Commonwealth is duplicating them.  

Mr White: Yes, it’s an interesting question. Essentially, ever since Federation started, there have been certain things where Commonwealth and state governments have done things in similar areas, and we have a lot of that now. We have a whole budget paper, Budget Paper No. 3, federal financial relations, which has $200 billion a year we give to the states. The question of duplication versus cooperation and doing things in different areas for the same sorts of things is an interesting question. Is us giving money to the states to run hospitals duplication or not is kind of a tricky question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think giving money to the states as part of grants and things like that is a duplication. It’s where you’re doing the same services. It seems to be rife in health, education, environment.  

Senator Gallagher: We have slightly different responsibilities, though. In health, states primarily run the hospital system, but we have responsibility in primary care—GPs, Medicare, aged care, those kinds of things. In education it’s more universities, early education and care; states have public schools. So there are differences. I’m just not sure how we would provide an answer to that on notice in a way that would not take a lot of effort.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, how much is a lot of effort compared to the benefits once we work them out? Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. The government’s increasing taxes, so why not look at cutting the need for taxes?  

Senator Gallagher: We’re cutting taxes as well. There’s tax reform, which includes tax cuts. But fundamentally, we probably have a disagreement that the Commonwealth duplicates functions of the states. I think the Federation and its roles and responsibilities are pretty well understood, and the architecture of the Commonwealth Public Service reflects that, just as the states’ reflect theirs.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s a huge opportunity to at least have a look at it and investigate it.  

Senator Gallagher: We’re always looking at ways to streamline. We genuinely are. We have no appetite to be in places that the Commonwealth shouldn’t be involved because we have enough in the areas of our responsibility. But I’ll see if there is anything useful that Treasury can provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Productivity is Prosperity

,
… government greed for other people’s money is our biggest threat.

Productivity and prosperity – these are two concepts intimately linked and yet wrongly separated thanks to the over-taxing demands of Treasury.

Productivity is not about taxation.

Taxation is a reward taken by the Treasury from productivity in the private sector.

This has led some ministers to view tax revenue as the chief goal of productivity instead of a reflection of economic success – a catastrophic error that speaks to the financial illiteracy plaguing the Labor government.

The recent Budget saw Labor propose raising taxes on the few remaining productive sectors of the economy. These represent the small corners of investment occupied with people trying to make ends meet in an increasingly unfair system. The result has been … predictable. A flat, weakening investment sector and stagnating housing markets.

Panic has spread. Money has retreated. Productivity has taken a hit it could not afford.

It was only last week that the Treasurer had to be told that his new Capital Gains Taxes threatened future productivity within the business sector and the investment market.

Think about it. When doubling taxes on risky investment returns, the government misses out on the taxes it could have collected when investors transition into home ownership. Which is what most young people say they intend to do with their capital gains… Because of these new taxes, young people will purchase fewer homes. It is just one example of stifling economic growth in favour of short-term tax grabs. And this is without mentioning the reduced productivity of renters already facing price hikes as a result.

Government greed for other people’s money is the biggest threat to productivity.

This government has strongly disincentivised productive risk-takers.

Business owners are punished and over-taxed workers are conditioned to blame their employers for economic hardship. This creates unproductive economic tension.

Instead, the true culprit is the acute failure of government to contain inflation and tighten its own belt. Labor has acquired substantial debts through mismanagement, hubris, panic, and delusion. What did we see in this budget? The Treasurer is still spending money he doesn’t have on things this country doesn’t need.

Meanwhile, businesses are collapsing are record rates. The public sector is growing. Wealth generation is shrinking. This is not productive.

Australia is becoming an incoherent economic mess that rewards a culture of hand-outs – be they corporate or private – instead of offering a hand-up to those who want to succeed.

Here is the truth. We are almost at a trillion dollars in debt, chasing our tail to keep up with interest repayments worth $28 billion per annum. Dead money. The Treasury is in desperate need of productivity while having no idea – whatsoever – about how to nurture productivity in a complex Western democracy full of free people making independent choices about their economic future.

The economy requires incentive, not the punishment.

What is ‘productivity’?

Productivity is cheap, reliable, Australian-sourced energy. It is good roads connecting regional areas with city centres. High speed rail lines and Australian-controlled ports. Refineries guaranteeing fuel supply when the world is in crisis. A competitive construction industry. It is the cutting of petty and unnecessary red tape. It is cutting UN and foreign agency imposed green and blue tape. It is high-speed, reliable internet – everywhere – including along highways and in regional areas. It is the freedom to take risks and earn a reward. It is a reliable nation of stable economic rules to encourage investment.

Productivity means placing trust and respect in businesses – freeing them of unnecessary cost burdens so they can hire staff, reward the hardest workers, and voluntarily pay above minimum wage.

Labor is spending all of its time focused on the minimum wage, because the economy is dying. Low wages are becoming the standard, rather than the baseline, because businesses are giving too much of their capital to the Treasury.

A Treasury that has run out of money and wants to dip into the pockets of Australians who did nothing wrong.

Productivity is not about working harder – it is about working smarter.

The Woke-Left have taken over the economy and built an economic prison rather than a promise.

One Nation wants to free the Australian people so they can be productive – on their own terms – to build a future they want for their children and their children’s children. Also, a nation worth living in for the people alive now, who deserve to enjoy the sacrifices of their ancestors.

To the Prime Minister, I say this, you don’t make the next generation of Australians productive through saddling them with an education debt larger than a housing deposit, selling their jobs to an imported workforce, and then tempting them into home deposit schemes they can never hope to pay off while depreciating the value of their asset. These Australians will never have the financial security to invest their money or take the risk of starting a business that creates productivity. What they are doing is surviving. Not thriving.

One Nation have been presenting policies for productivity for years. Since rising in the polls, these policies have gained traction. The response? Our political opponents are seeking to tear them down. They complain that any drop in revenue is an affront to the status quo of Treasury.

When we offered income splitting to give families a fairer tax policy and the flexibility to raise their own children, we were told this would ‘hurt income tax returns’ and ‘cause women to leave the workforce’. I’m sorry? What about the savings to childcare, which are currently costing the Budget a fortune? What about the humanity of allowing one parent to stay home, if that is what they wish? What about the benefits to the child? The community benefits? The education benefits? One Nation offers economic freedom – and the economists whinge.

When One Nation offered to end bracket creep – Labor, the Coalition, and Greens united to stop us. Then the government tossed a measly $250 at working Australians in compensation. It is … disgusting. It is … dishonest.

When One Nation offered greater freedom to businesses so they can grow and hire more staff, we are told that we are denting corporate tax. One Nation does not want minimum wage to be the anchor dragging down prosperity – we want the private sector to reward merit, pay better wages, and give proper benefits to the hardest workers and brightest staff because the most skilled should rise to the top. Productive societies are merit-driven. Always.

Merit makes money. Hard work makes money. Businesses make money. Government spends money other people have made.

And it should spend that money in a way that encourages productivity – not fantasy obsessions, like a non-existent climate crisis. The green apocalypse made a lot of corporations very rich at the expense of taxpayers. You think we didn’t notice – we did.

Of course, One Nation will retain the minimum award system and seeks to elevate wages above the minimum level through productivity increases.

One Nation understands that productivity has nothing to do with forcing people to work harder. They already work hard. Instead, Australia requires bold changes in regulation to unchain the economy and release its potential.

A smaller government.

This is our message to the Treasurer. If you have to sit around mulling over productivity at a roundtable it means you don’t understand productivity. You have no clue what to do.

Just as you cannot subsidise your way to becoming an energy super-power, you cannot tax your way to productivity.

A One Nation leadership will force – force – the government to tighten its belt, stop wasting money, and cut off parasitic departments and bureaucracies. We will shrink the government to fit the constitution, saving $90 billion a year of waste and duplication, so that we can offer the Australian people lower taxes, less red tape, and more personal flexibility. One Nation wants tax money put to use to build transit lines and infrastructure required to increase productivity – not into wasteful projects that tick a Net Zero box at the UN.

We cannot keep sending billions ($31 billion a year) of dollars offshore and billions more into the hands of domestic fraudsters and criminals.

Cheap, reliable energy. Proper infrastructure. Real wealth. Lower taxes. Less bureaucracy.

That is the formula for productivity.

I will finish with this. And this will hurt. If the Treasury wants productivity, it will have to take a leaf out of the private sector. It will have to take a risk. Take a hit to its balance sheet. Make an investment. It will have to lower taxes and allow the private sector to keep more of it what it earns so that the men and women of Australia can choose what sections of the economy to grow – to pick the best parts to invest in – to cultivate what actually works, not what the government wants to work.

The Australian people have always been financially responsible and economically intelligent. They will dig the government out of this financial hole – only if the government lets them.

/1 Comment/by

A Private Line to the Minister

,

The Labor government is overriding our courts and regulators to hand-pick which advocacy groups get tax-deductible status.

In a recent Senate Estimates hearing, I questioned why Equality Australia was granted specific Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status in the 2025 Budget, despite being rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Full Federal Court. All three bodies ruled that their work is political advocacy, not “direct benevolent relief.”

When I asked for the legal basis or the principles used to bypass these independent determinations, the government hid behind “Cabinet confidentiality.”

This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the integrity of our tax system. We cannot have a system where groups who lose in court simply lobby a Minister for a custom-made law.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are actually brief, but I have to untangle the acronyms. I have to give you some background first to set up my questions. Equality Australia applied for public benevolent institution status in 2020 and was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because its primary purpose was advocacy and law reform, not direct benevolent relief. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission found its activities were ‘too indirect’ to qualify as benevolent relief. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s decision. The Full Federal Court dismissed Equality Australia’s appeal in September 2024, confirming that advocacy and campaigning for law reform did not meet the statutory definition of a public benevolent institution.  

After losing in court, Equality Australia wrote to Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh in November 2024, seeking a specific listing for deductible gift recipient status under the Income Tax Act 1997. Cabinet approved the listing in early 2025 and the March federal budget included Equality Australia as a named deductible gift recipient entity for five years. Media commentary highlights concerns that this decision effectively overrode determinations by three accountability bodies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court.  

My questions are: why did Treasury support a specific deductible gift recipient status listing for Equality Australia after the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission refused public benevolent institution status, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed and the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2024 all on the basis that Equality Australia’s activities are advocacy, not direct benevolent relief? What principles justify overriding three independent determinations?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Decisions made on DGR-specific listings are decisions of cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what principle justifies overriding three independent determinations?  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have anything further to add to that. I’m not aware of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did Treasury advise cabinet that a specific listing bypasses the ordinary deductible gift recipient pathway for a single organisation?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Typically, we do provide advice on specific listings. Specific listings are only for those organisations that do not qualify for any of the other 52 DGR categories that are administered by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: You did give advice?  

Dr Johnson: It’s not appropriate to talk about cabinet material in Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Treasury advice?  

Dr Johnson: That’s Treasury advice for a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t provide it on notice?  

Dr Johnson: No, not in relation to things that relate to a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pretty handy. I have two final questions: on what legal basis did Treasury rely to proceed where the courts found the activities did not meet the public benevolent institution test? Secondly, how does Treasury ensure consistency with the statutory meaning of ‘benevolent relief’ used by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, when recommending by name a deductible gift recipient? What legal basis did Treasury rely on?  

Senator Gallagher: As to specific listings—there are a few every budget that the ERC or the government considers when other avenues have been exhausted. That reflects a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what legal advice Treasury received.  

Senator Gallagher: Treasury provide advice on the listings that come before us. Ministers get briefed appropriately, but ultimately it’s a decision for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the government ignore or bypass three institutions with experience in this area and responsibility for this area—the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Charities—  

Senator Gallagher: I’ve taken that on notice. I was just more generally saying how the decisions are taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide an answer to that?  

Senator Gallagher: I have undertaken to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: And also the basis for the decision?  

Senator Gallagher: Yes, I have taken that on notice.  

/by