Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026

The short answer

Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026

The Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026 is a private senator's bill introduced in the Senate on 7 September 2026. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to provide a tax offset for companies for certain expenditure incurred in undertaking food donation activities for registered food charities. The measure is intended to change the economics of surplus food so that donating is preferable to dumping. It is a reintroduction: an earlier bill of the same name was introduced by West Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith in July 2024, referred to the Senate Economics Committee, and then rejected; the government confirmed in March 2026 that it would not proceed with that bill. At the time of writing the 2026 bill had been introduced only. It has not been passed, has not received royal assent and has not commenced, and no tax offset is available under it.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill does

The Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026 was introduced in the Senate on 7 September 2026. According to the Parliament of Australia bills register, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to provide a tax offset for companies for certain expenditure incurred in undertaking food donation activities for registered food charities.

In plain terms, the bill is designed to change the tax outcome of surplus food. Under the existing framework a food business generally receives the same tax treatment whether it dumps unsold or surplus food or gives it away, so the bill's supporters argue there is no financial reason to donate. The offset is intended to create one, by giving companies a tax benefit tied to the cost of getting edible surplus food to charities that distribute it.

The bill is a private senator's bill, not a government measure. It is the second attempt to legislate this policy: an earlier bill of the same name was introduced in July 2024 and did not proceed. Like any bill, the 2026 version must pass both houses of Parliament and receive royal assent before it becomes law.

Evidence review

The 2024 bill and why it lapsed

The earlier Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 was introduced in the Senate by West Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith in early July 2024. It proposed a food donations tax offset for companies that donate surplus food to registered food charities, naming organisations such as Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite.

The bill was referred to the Senate Economics References Committee, which reported in November 2024 and recommended that it be rejected. The government responded on 31 March 2026, accepting the committee's recommendation and confirming it would not proceed with the bill. In its response the government said the legislation contained deficiencies that compromised its policy intent, that it presented an uncapped and unaccounted-for cost to the budget, that it risked preferencing large corporations over small businesses and charities, and that it lacked sufficient safeguards against the dumping of poor-quality food.

The government also declined to adopt changes proposed in a Coalition senators' dissenting report, including expanding eligibility to partnerships and trusts, including Public Benevolent Institutions as eligible recipients, and raising the turnover threshold. It said those enhancements would not resolve the bill's core problems, and it pointed instead to existing grant funding for food relief and food waste programs.

Evidence review

How the offset was designed to work

The published detail of the mechanism comes principally from the 2024 bill, which was the subject of the Senate inquiry. As reported at the time, the offset was to be refundable for companies with aggregated turnover below $20 million and non-refundable above that threshold, with the offset percentage scaling down as turnover rose: 45 per cent for businesses under $20 million, 40 per cent for those between $20 million and $50 million, and 30 per cent for those above $50 million, capped at $5 million or a set percentage of food donation costs.

The design was a deliberate attempt to direct the benefit towards smaller food businesses — farmers, wholesalers and transporters — rather than towards large corporations that already have established food donation programs. That concern is also why the government's objection that the offset would disproportionately benefit large corporations went to the heart of the policy.

The 2026 bill carries the same short title and the same stated purpose, amending the same two tax Acts. Readers should check the 2026 bill's own explanatory memorandum for any change in the rates, caps or eligibility settings, because the operative detail of a renewed bill can differ from the version that lapsed.

Evidence review

The case for and against

Supporters of the measure argue that it addresses two problems with one instrument: food relief charities facing unprecedented demand, and large volumes of edible food being dumped each year, often because dumping is cheaper than donating. Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite have publicly backed the concept, and KPMG modelling of an earlier iteration was cited as finding about $2 billion a year in social, economic and environmental benefit and a contribution to Australia's commitment to halve food waste by 2030.

The government's position is that the same goals are better pursued through direct funding. It has pointed to $20 million over five years shared by Foodbank, OzHarvest, SecondBite and Good360 from 1 October 2025, described as a doubling of its investment in food relief, to a $37 million investment through the Food Waste for Healthy Soils Fund, and to the Circular Economy Framework and the Great Unwaste behaviour-change campaign.

The sector has continued to press for tax reform, arguing that grant funding is not a substitute for changing the economics of donation. Both positions are recorded here as arguments about a bill, not as findings, and the decision on whether to pass the 2026 bill rests with the Parliament.

Evidence review

The facts on food insecurity and waste cited in the debate

The debate is framed by figures that the participants themselves have put on the public record. Foodbank's Hunger Report found that 3.7 million Australian households experienced moderate to severe food insecurity in the 12 months to July 2023. On the waste side, food waste is estimated to cost the economy $36.6 billion a year, with roughly 70 per cent of the 7.6 million tonnes wasted each year said to still be edible at the time of disposal.

Australia's National Food Waste Strategy sets a target to halve food waste by 2030, a target with bipartisan support. Both sides of the debate claim their approach is the better route to it: supporters say a tax incentive is the structural reform that shifts behaviour at scale, while the government says direct investment in food relief and organics recycling infrastructure is more targeted and more accountable.

These are contested policy questions, and the figures are cited as reported by the organisations and publications that produced them. They are presented here to explain the debate, not as independently verified measurements.

Evidence review

Introduction, passage, assent and commencement

The bill was introduced in the Senate on 7 September 2026. Introduction is the first stage of the parliamentary process: it is the formal presentation of the bill, not a decision by the Senate on its merits.

Passage requires agreement by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Only then is the bill presented to the Governor-General for royal assent, which is the step that makes it an Act. Commencement is separate again: an Act operates from the date or dates set in its commencement provisions, which may be later than assent.

At the time of writing the bill had been introduced only. It had not been passed by both houses, had not received royal assent and had not commenced. Because it is a private senator's bill, its progress depends on the Senate's allocation of time and on majority support rather than on a minister's program. No company is entitled to a food donations tax offset as a result of the bill's introduction.

Evidence review

What happens next

A bill introduced in the Senate normally proceeds to a second reading debate and then through committee stages in that chamber before being transmitted to the House of Representatives, where a similar process follows. Either house may refer the bill to a committee for inquiry and report, and the Senate may again send it to the Economics References Committee, which examined the 2024 version.

As a private senator's bill, its progress is not guaranteed on a set timetable. It may proceed to debate, be referred to a committee, or remain on the notice paper. The Parliament of Australia bills register records each stage as it occurs and links to the bill text, the explanatory memorandum and any committee material.

Readers should treat the bills register and the 2026 bill's explanatory memorandum as the authoritative sources for the text and progress of the measure, and should rely on those documents rather than on the 2024 inquiry record for the bill's current settings. This article does not assert that the offset has been enacted or that any tax treatment has changed.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer