The bill as it currently stands imposes an additional 15 per cent tax on a proportion of earnings relating to super balances over $3 million from 1 July 2025 as well as disclosure requirements in the ACNC Act that seek to increase public transparency of Australian charities and not-for-profits.
Additionally, the present bill allows for the Corporations Act to provide limited exemptions for foreign financial services to hold an AFSL.
The split motion was put forward on 27 November by WA Liberal senator Dean Smith, who is also the chair of the standing committee for the scrutiny of bills.
Senator Smith proposed that the bill be divided into two bills and amended in accordance with the amendments on sheet 3191.
These two bills would be:
· Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Bill 2023, which contains the Division 296 tax measure in schedules 1 to 3 to the original bill.
· Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, which contains all remaining measures, such as the disclosure requirements in the ACNC Act and AFSL changes included in schedules 4 to 8 to the original bill.
SMSF Association CEO Peter Burgess said the original bill contained some non-controversial amendments that have nothing to do with super.
“These amendments are being held up due to the controversy around Division 296,” he said.
“The Senate agreed to split the bill so the non-controversial amendments could proceed as a separate bill, which should actually help our cause.”
He continued the bill split motion passed on 28 November, however, the bills were not debated.
“That will occur on the next sitting day as per the motion. The motion requires that further consideration of each bill be an order of the day for the next day of sitting,” he said.
“It means the Division 296 bill will be considered on the first sitting day back unless an election is called beforehand.”
In the final sitting week of Parliament for the year, the government attempted to guillotine the bill but the motion suffered a defeat in the Senate.
After tense negotiations between Labor, the Greens, and Senate independents, the government then scaled back its original agenda, cutting 36 bills down to a package of 27 pieces of legislation and excluding the controversial tax on super balances over $3 million.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher assured that the changes to Division 296 remain Labor policy but conceded that the bill faces opposition in the Senate, calling the upper house “an obstructionist chamber”.
“There’s a big cross bench with different views, we’ve got an opposition that doesn’t want to work with the government, that wants to stop progress, but we are going to be fighting right up to the end,” Minister Gallagher said.
Note to Katy Gallagher – it’s not an obstructionist chamber in the senate that was the cause of Div 296 failing to pass. Rather, it was the poorly thought-out formula and the reckless disregard of well-respected institutions that outlined, repeatedly and en-masse the many flawed aspects of this part of the Bill with short consultation processes aimed to force this through the parliament. Thankfully, those that are able to express their view in the senate, did so, and stopped this lunacy. We are not a communist country. We have a parliamentary process that is there to protect the people and the processes of our constitution.
Labor may wish to always vote as a block, and may prefer to be in bed with the Greens on issues that attack hard-working, aspirational Australians, but thankfully enough Senate cross-benchers could see right through what you have been attempting to force through.
You were not able to make this LAW – essentially, stealing life-time savings and trying to de-stabilise the whole superannuation system for your own use and further wastage.
Hopefully, the Future Fund also remains OFF-LIMITS. Enough wastage, please.
There is another solution to the budget deficit problem:
Paraphrasing Kerry Packers famous words “You lot should stop wasting money”
Dear Katy… ‘Or you’ve got a meat-headed idea that steamrolling a very poorly conceived bill through parliament should be your inalienable right.’
Just like you (collectively) did with franking credits a few short years ago. I would have thought that such actions would have a repetition factor similar to urinating on the proverbial electric fence; but there you go. I’m disappointed but not totally flabbergasted.
Breaking the pre -election promise to pad the bottom of the debt abyss that Jim and Anthony have constructed may possibly be taken into account when deciding where to allocate votes in the coming election. Will Mr. Bowen be delivering any pithy advice this time around, I wonder?