Naz Randeria, director of Reliance Auditing Services, said Div 296 “crosses a line” that superannuation policy has never crossed before.
“It taxes accumulated capital, not behaviour. Once that principle is accepted, there is no logical barrier to extending it beyond super. That should concern anyone who values certainty in Australia’s tax system,” Randeria said.
“[This tax] continues to be presented as a narrowly targeted measure aimed at a small group of wealthy Australians, but that narrative does not hold up when you look at the ATO’s own data.”
The data, published last week on data.gov.au, revealed that in 2024, the average SMSF member balance was about $835,000 and the average SMSF balance around $1.55 million to $1.6 million.
“These are not extravagant outcomes. They represent Australians who have saved steadily over decades — small business owners, professionals, families and retirees who have done exactly what the superannuation system was designed to encourage,” Randeria said.
“It is also important to remember that this data is a snapshot in time. It reflects 2024 balances, and anyone working in this sector knows how quickly asset values can move. Through 2025, we have seen material strength across different asset classes at different points — property, equities and even traditional defensive assets like gold. Superannuation is a long-term system built on compounding and market cycles.”
She continued that even with indexation, a balance-based tax will inevitably capture more people over time as asset values grow.
“Div 296 may have been modified in its final form, but it still represents a fundamental shift in how superannuation is taxed. It is not a tax on contributions or income in the conventional sense. It is triggered by accumulated capital exceeding a threshold,” she said.
“That distinction matters, because it changes how Australians perceive the security and predictability of the superannuation system.”
She added that the data published on the top 100 SMSFs also highlights something often ignored in the public debate.
“Larger SMSFs are not cash boxes. They are typically invested in long-term assets such as commercial property, farmland, private businesses and unlisted investments,” she said.
“These are patient, productive investments held over long periods. A balance-based tax makes no distinction between liquid income and capital invested in real assets supporting businesses, tenants and employment.”
Furthermore, Randeria said, it is misleading to treat SMSFs as a fringe structure as there are now more than 650,000 SMSFs with around 1.2 million members.
“This is a mainstream part of Australia’s retirement system. These are ordinary Australians who have chosen to take responsibility for their retirement outcomes and invest over decades,” she said.
“Undermining confidence in this sector has consequences well beyond the cohort initially captured by a new tax.”
However, Randeria said this is not the biggest concern.
“Rather, it is the precedent Div 296 sets. Once government accepts the principle that accumulated asset values can be taxed simply because they exceed a threshold, it becomes very difficult to argue where that principle should stop,” she said.
“If superannuation balances can be taxed on this basis, what prevents future governments from applying similar logic elsewhere?”



Of course Naz Randeria is absolutelt correct.
Let me give you one example utilized overseas which has a equally high chance of being adopted here in Australia.
In the USA Tax system, your principle place of residence is NOT 100% tax exempt.
Married couples receive a capital gains exemption on the first $500,000 of GAIN on their home when they sell.
Now inagine if this Labor government which surpresses “asperational” financial success in preferences for DEI, “Equality” of outcome, and caps your principle place of residence CGT exemption to say $1m ?
Their arguments will be; ‘well if you bought your home for $3m and you sell it for $5m, then an exemption of $1m is reasonable when themedian house price is $1m.
Australia has a serious lack of Tax Policy thinking and very poor productivity which i why the RBA will need to increase rstes next year. Raising the comsumption tax is “THE” most equitible taxing method abailable because welthy people ALWAYS spend more. But Labor does not posess the intestinal fortitude or macroeconomic understanding because of the “FEAR” of political backlash with the States [articularly Victoria. So, Australia needs new Leadership because PM Albonese is NO Paul Keating and neither is Chalmers, with all due respect. The are no commercial business incentives to raise productivity by this Labor Governement; just HOPE that somehow “AI” will save the day.
So, the “DEI” mantra will prevail.