Peter Burgess, CEO, SMSF Association
The government’s decision not to proceed with the taxation of unrealised capital gains. This decision along with the decision to index the cap has significantly reduced the severity of this tax, particularly for the SMSF sector which was most at risk with a tax on unrealised capital gains.
Liam Shorte, director, SONAS Wealth
Without a doubt the backdown by the government on Div 296 reforms which saw them remove the taxing of unrealised gains and promise to index the $3 million threshold as well as delay start to 1 July 2026. Remember this was barely mentioned in the last election but the whole sector came together to bring the government back to the table to review the proposed tax.
David Busoli, principal, SMSF Alliance
A significant win for the sector, and the government, was the relative resolution of the main issue of contention of Div 296 – the abandoning of the tax on unrealised gains – though we are yet to see the detail.
We also had the long-awaited finalisation of the ATO’s NALI guidance which, though a win, did not address the unreasonable consequences of a general breach.
Meg Heffron, director, Heffron
The Treasurer’s reconsideration of the calculation method for Div 296 tax. There is still a lot of water to go under the bridge but ruling out tax on unrealised capital gains make a considerable difference to the way in which this tax is perceived by the community.
It would be fascinating to know whether this tax would in fact be law already (in place for 2025/26) if only the government had listened to the industry earlier and made this change at the start.
Naz Randeria, director, Reliance Auditing Services
For me, the biggest win for the SMSF sector in 2025 was surpassing $1 trillion in total assets. To me, this is a bold, unmistakable statement: people want to take control of their financial future, achieve success on their own terms, and build genuinely self-funded retirement.
Shelley Banton, director, Super Clarity
Without question, the most significant achievement for the SMSF sector in 2025 was the outcome related to Div 296. The government’s initial draft legislation was met with strong advocacy, primarily led by the SMSF Association, resulting in a substantial reversal of the proposed measures.
While the revised legislation is not without flaws, it represents a considerable improvement compared to the original proposal.
The original intention to tax unrealised gains on high member balances would have established a dangerous precedent within Australian tax law. As a result, the sector has avoided a framework that could have had far-reaching negative implications for trustees and members alike, both now and in the future.
Nicholas Ali, head of SMSF technical services, Neo Super
The government’s backdown on Div 296 extra tax on superannuation. The initial proposal was poorly designed and the consultation process was proof the government had made up its mind and did not want to engage the industry.
Division 296 2.0 is not much better, and I’ll never understand why the government did not simply introduce compulsory cashing as a means to reduce very large superannuation balances.
Whilst this was a great win for the sector and commonsense, it just goes to show how public policy is all about politics and not designing and implementing the most logical and equitable solutions. I know this has always been the case in every sphere, but it is still a disappointing realisation.
