Of course, super is unlikely to occupy anywhere near as much airtime as cost of living, housing, immigration, interest rates, energy prices or the climate.
But we have seen at least some positions from the ALP, Coalition and Greens that are worth highlighting.
The Australian Labor Party
It appears the ALP remains committed to Division 296 tax (an extra tax on those with more than $3m in super) despite being unable to get it through the Senate before calling the election. Since the revenue it is due to collect is still factored into the Government’s income projections from 2026/27 onwards, we can expect this tax to remain on their agenda. There’s also the chance that a win at the Federal Election will encourage the (returning) Government to feel they have a mandate to introduce it. Here’s hoping they will also take a beat to rethink some of the design rather than bringing precisely the same tax back to Parliament.
Payday super remains current policy and is expected to be introduced from 1 July 2026 (in fact legislation is already out for consultation). Super on paid parental leave (paid by the Government) has already been legislated and will take effect from 1 July 2025.
I wonder also if we would see more bold reform on super tax concessions more broadly by a refreshed Albanese Government? Done well, these don’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. Superannuation is the centrepiece of retirement these days and for it to be sustainable the concessions have to be well targeted and seen as “fair”. Some criticism of the current set of rules is probably warranted and could do with review.
On the topic of retirement, the Government is also exploring how Australian super funds manage the draw down phase of super better – ie, pensions in retirement. This may sound like a foreign concept to those of us working exclusively with SMSFs (as this has been our bread and butter for years). But having a growing cohort of members who are drawing down on their super presents new challenges for large funds that they will need to be ready to address. I expect a returned ALP would continue working on this.
Other policies critical for participants in the SMSF industry rather than the trustees themselves include reforms around advice generally. Treasury’s “Delivering Better Financial Outcomes” roadmap reflects ALP policies around advice reform across three streams – removing red tape that add to the cost of advice, expanding access to retirement income advice and exploring new channels for advice. Most recently, for example, the new draft Bill – Treasury Laws Amendment Bill 2025 : Delivering Better Financial Outcomes was released for consultation in late March. It seeks to replace the Statement of Advice with a more fit-for-purpose advice record, provide rules about what advice can be charged to a super fund, and allow super funds to prompt members to engage with their super. This program would be expected to continue under a returned ALP Government.
Liberal / National Coalition
The Coalition has stated publicly it would not introduce Division 296 tax – the taxation of unrealised capital gains and lack of indexation of the $3m threshold are two major sticking points.
Apart from taking an anti-Division 296 stance, the Coalition’s major contribution to the super debate has been to link super with the hot button topic of housing affordability. The Coalition would introduce greater access to drawing down on super to fund a first home. Their current policy appears unchanged since first announced back in 2022 for the last election. It would allow members to access up to $50,000 of their super (capped at 40% of the total balance) to buy a first home, on the condition it is returned to the super system when the home is sold. While there is little detail available, it would seem this is likely to be much broader than the First Home Super Savers Scheme in that it would extend to all super (the FHSSS only allows the release of voluntary contributions, not Superannuation Guarantee amounts).
Recent speeches also have the Coalition on record as supporting:
- Choice, flexibility and control over super – including SMSFs
- Bringing accountants back into the advice world
- Removal of some recent changes to the Tax Agents’ Code of Conduct
- Reform of the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort to make it more equitable and sustainable.
(No real detail is yet available as to how some of these would be put into effect.)
Greens
The Greens’ main contribution to the Division 296 tax debate has been to suggest a lower threshold ($2m) so that more people are subject to the tax. They also remain staunch critics of Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangements (LRBAs) for SMSFs and generally in favour of reductions in superannuation tax concessions for higher earners.
Regardless of who officially wins and forms Government, it is likely the Greens and various Independents will continue to be crucial in getting support for legislative change.
It’s not even a gain. It’s simply gone up to its original cost – and you’re taxed on that
Please clarify Div296 for me is the following circumstances:
You could have a tax bill recouping losses from a prior year – not even a capital gain.
Eg Assume no contributions or withdrawals. A SMSF buys $4m of BHP shares before the drop this year. They drop to $3.0m by 30/6/25.
By 30/6/2026 they have come back to $4m. So no real capital gain.
However under Jim’s plan would you have a personal tax bill of:
($4m – $3m)/$4m =$250000x 15%=$37,500.00?
If this is the case, how is that fair? How can any politician think this is right even if the person is “wealthy”?
Hi Chris – that’s what I get as well – $37500 tax bill for that one year. After the catch up in the gain to previous years, it is not double-taxed, just the anomaly as it grows back to where it was prior to the introduction to this tax as per my own understanding. I am sure that Meg can clarify that.
As we have been saying all along, it is a tax on paper profits only. The Labor government and its supporters do not care about the unfairness of this tax. They just want the money. And its locked away from even the member, ready for the picking by the ATO.
The ATO has on their website a link on its Div 296 page, that if it is passed by parliament, even post-1st July 2025, the tax is quite possibly retrospective. So, unfortunately, this tax is not dead and buried it would seem.
Chalmers will not make a comment on it even when asked point blank (listen to the debate between Taylor and Chalmers). But its budgeted as revenue in the March 2025 Budget.