Taxing paper gains before assets are sold
Critics said the bill could tax increases in asset values before any asset is sold, creating cash flow problems and potentially forcing people to sell property or other illiquid assets to pay the tax.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures)
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Budget, tax & economy
What does this bill do?
Reviews of ASICAustralia's corporate and markets watchdog, which this bill would have reviewed less often under the regulator changes. and APRAThe regulator that oversees banks, insurers and super funds, and whose review cycle would have been stretched out under the bill. by the Financial Regulator Assessment AuthorityThe body that reviews major financial regulators; the bill would have changed its review timing from every 2 years to every 5 financial years. would move from every 2 years to every 5 financial years so the regulators have more time to respond and reviews can be broader.
Why was it introduced?
Super tax breaks were poorly targeted at balances above $3 million, and regulators had gaps in reviewing watchdogs, warning about harmful charity investigations, and overseeing new payment services. The bill adds extra tax on earnings linked to super balances above $3 million and updates those regulator powers and review rules.
Broader context
Generous super tax concessions still applied to balances above $3 million, and an earlier bid to modernise payment-system oversight had already been introduced in 2022 but fell when Parliament was prorogued. The 2023-24 Budget revived and expanded that agenda by proposing extra tax on earnings linked to super balances above $3 million and updating regulator powers, and the bill was introduced in November 2023, passed the House in October 2024, then lapsed on 21 July 2025 before becoming law.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the new super tax is badly designed because it taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. above the $3 million threshold without indexation, which critics said could create unfair bills and force asset sales by people with illiquid holdings. That concern drove Coalition opposition and was also raised by several crossbenchers who backed tighter super tax breaks in principle but wanted amendments before supporting the bill.
Who supported it?
Stephen Jones MP introduced this bill. It was supported by Labor, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Introduced in House 30 Nov 2023
Passed House 09 Oct 2024 Aye 75 No 62
Failed in Senate 21 July 2025
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
6 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
599 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Reviews of ASICAustralia's corporate and markets watchdog, which this bill would have reviewed less often under the regulator changes. and APRAThe regulator that oversees banks, insurers and super funds, and whose review cycle would have been stretched out under the bill. by the Financial Regulator Assessment AuthorityThe body that reviews major financial regulators; the bill would have changed its review timing from every 2 years to every 5 financial years. would move from every 2 years to every 5 financial years so the regulators have more time to respond and reviews can be broader.
-
From 1 July 2025, people with more than $3 million across all their Australian super accounts would pay extra tax on the share of yearly earnings linked to the amount above $3 million.
-
People charged the new super tax would be able to pay it from money outside super or by releasing money from one or more of their super accounts, even if they have not met a normal release conditionA rule that normally must be met before money can be taken out of super; the bill would have let some people pay the tax without meeting one..
-
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits CommissionThe charity regulator, which the bill would have let disclose some investigation details sooner in serious cases. would be allowed to publicly disclose details about a charity investigation when that is needed to prevent serious harm or misuse of funds, subject to safeguards and review rights.
-
The Reserve Bank of AustraliaAustralia's central bank, which would have gained wider oversight powers over payment systems under the bill. and other regulators would get wider powers over payment systems, including digital wallets and buy now pay later providers, and the Treasurer could single out nationally significant payment services for extra oversight.
Show source excerpts
-
The requirement to review ASIC and APRA every two years necessarily meant that the FRAA would be able to review only a portion of the regulators’ functions in each review. This extended review cycle improves the FRAA’s ability to achieve its objectives under the FRAA Act and encourages future reviews to be more comprehensive. It is intended that this will deliver more holistic and valuable feedback on the performance of ASIC and APRA, despite the reviews being less regular. Additionally, the regulators will have sufficient time to consider and respond to recommendations, and potentially implement changes, before the next review is commenced.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum -
The policy will start on 1 July 2025 and apply from the 2025-26 income year onwards. Only individuals with TSBs more than $3 million will be subject to the new arrangements.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum -
Individuals can choose how to pay their Division 296 tax liability. Individuals liable to pay a Division 296 tax will have the option of paying their tax liability either by releasing amounts from one or more of their superannuation interests or by paying the liability from outside of the superannuation system or a combination of the two. This will be the case for all individuals irrespective of whether they have met a condition of release.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum -
The Commissioner of the ACNC may authorise an ACNC officer to disclose protected ACNC information describing an ongoing or proposed investigation, where disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm, subject to a public harm test as a safeguard. A registered entity may lodge an objection prior to disclosure, and the decision to authorise disclosure may be subject to merits and judicial review.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) explanatory memorandum -
Finally, schedule 8 in this bill gives the Reserve Bank of Australia greater powers to regulate a broader range of players in the payment system, as well as extending these powers to other relevant regulators where there is a material risk to the 'national interest'. These changes will modernise our payment regulation framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose, now and well into the future.
Minister's second reading speech
Context
Broader context for this bill
Generous super tax concessions still applied to balances above $3 million, and an earlier bid to modernise payment-system oversight had already been introduced in 2022 but fell when Parliament was prorogued. The 2023-24 Budget revived and expanded that agenda by proposing extra tax on earnings linked to super balances above $3 million and updating regulator powers, and the bill was introduced in November 2023, passed the House in October 2024, then lapsed on 21 July 2025 before becoming law.
- February 2022
Earlier payments oversight bill is introduced and later lapses
The explanatory memorandum says the impact analysis for Schedule 7 was prepared for a payments measure first introduced in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Streamlining and Improving Economic Outcomes for Australians) Bill 2022, which later lapsed at prorogation.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 2023-24 Budget
Budget targets super tax breaks above $3 million
The explanatory memorandum says Schedules 1 to 3 implement the 2023-24 Budget measure Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions to reduce tax concessions for individuals with total super balances exceeding $3 million.
Explanatory memorandum ↗ - 30 Nov 2023
Government introduces the bill as a package of tax and regulator changes
When introducing the bill, the Assistant Treasurer said it made targeted reforms and that Schedules 1 to 3 would reduce super tax concessions on total balances above $3 million.
Hansard ↗ - 09 Oct 2024
House passes the bill
The parliamentary timeline records the bill's third reading being agreed to in the House after consideration in detail, completing its passage through that chamber.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 10 Oct 2024
Bill is introduced in the Senate
The bill was presented and read a first time in the Senate, but it did not complete the remaining stages needed to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 21 July 2025
Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The parliamentary timeline records the bill lapsing at the end of Parliament, so none of its proposed superannuation or regulator changes took effect through this bill.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 30 Nov 2023
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 30 Nov 2023
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/05/2024) review 07 Dec 2023
Referred to Committee (07/12/2023): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/05/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesSecond reading debate 15 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 16 May 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House second reading agreed Aye 76 No 64 16 May 2024
Recorded vote: 76 to 64.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Consideration in detail 09 Oct 2024
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
House third reading agreed Aye 75 No 62 09 Oct 2024
Recorded vote: 75 to 62.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 10 Oct 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 10 Oct 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved : Bill divided into two bills 28/11/24
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism was that the new super tax is badly designed because it taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. above the $3 million threshold without indexation, which critics said could create unfair bills and force asset sales by people with illiquid holdings. That concern drove Coalition opposition and was also raised by several crossbenchers who backed tighter super tax breaks in principle but wanted amendments before supporting the bill.
Much of the criticism targeted the tax design, not the broader goal of curbing large super concessions.
No indexation could pull more people in over time
Opponents argued the fixed $3 million threshold is unfair because it is not indexed, meaning inflation and asset growth could drag more people into the higher tax over time, including younger workers.
Family farms, small business and SMSFs could be hit unevenly
Several MPs said the measure would fall especially hard on self-managed super funds holding farms, business property or other assets that are valuable on paper but hard to sell in part, creating unintended consequences for regional families and small business owners.
Poor transition and weak consultation on the final design
Some crossbench critics said the government had not properly responded to consultation and had not built in fair transition arrangements, making the measure look rushed and increasing the risk of avoidable unintended outcomes.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Carried House passed the bill
Passed 75 to 62. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
House passed the bill
Party Aye / No
Labor 65 / 0
Unknown 8 / 22
Independent 2 / 8
Liberal Party 0 / 19
Nationals 0 / 12
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Earlier bill-stage votes
Carried House cleared second reading
Passed 76 to 64. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
House cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 66 / 0
Unknown 9 / 22
Independent 1 / 8
Liberal Party 0 / 21
Nationals 0 / 12
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Amendments at a glance
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated Reject unrealised gains measure
Defeated 9 to 52. Support came from Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Reject unrealised gains measure
It would have changed how the new superannuation tax base was calculated, but the amendment was defeated 52 to 9.
Party Aye / No
Independent 7 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Unknown 1 / 5
Labor 0 / 46
Defeated Remove superannuation tax schedules
Defeated 59 to 76. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Remove superannuation tax schedules
It would have removed the core superannuation tax changes from the legislation, but the amendment was defeated 76 to 59.
Party Aye / No
Unknown 22 / 8
Liberal Party 19 / 0
Nationals 12 / 0
Independent 5 / 2
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Labor 0 / 66
Defeated Review superannuation balance tax
Defeated 60 to 74. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Review superannuation balance tax
It would have added a review mechanism for the large-balance superannuation tax changes, but the amendment was defeated 74 to 60.
Party Aye / No
Unknown 22 / 8
Liberal Party 19 / 0
Nationals 12 / 0
Independent 7 / 2
Labor 0 / 64
Defeated Criticise super tax on unrealised gains
Defeated 10 to 55. Support came from Centre Alliance and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Criticise super tax on unrealised gains
This was a second-reading position vote, not a direct change to the bill text, and it was defeated 55 to 10 before the bill's second reading was agreed.
Party Aye / No
Independent 8 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Unknown 1 / 9
Labor 0 / 46
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Stephen Jones
Stephen Jones supports the bill, saying it makes targeted and responsible changes to superannuation, charity regulation, financial oversight and payment system rules.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Luke Howarth
Luke Howarth says the coalition will oppose the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and imposes an unfair, unindexed tax that he says will hurt young people, farmers and small business owners.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Monique Ryan
Ryan supports the bill and says better targeting superannuation tax concessions is a sensible step toward making the system fairer.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Opposes
Allegra Spender
Spender opposes the bill in its current form because she says taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., the lack of a clawback, and the missing indexation make it badly designed and harmful to startups and scale-ups.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
3 speakers · 3 support
Labor
3 speakers · 3 support
-
Graham Perrett Graham Perrett supports the bill and says it makes superannuation concessions fairer and more sustainable by targeting the new tax change at balances above $3 million.
“I speak in support of the raft of reforms included in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 brought by the honourable member for Whitlam.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jenny McAllister McAllister supports the bill, saying it makes targeted and responsible changes to better target superannuation tax concessions and improve regulatory outcomes.
“This Bill makes targeted, responsible reforms to support better economic, fiscal and regulatory outcomes.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Stephen Jones ★ Stephen Jones supports the bill, saying it makes targeted and responsible changes to superannuation, charity regulation, financial oversight and payment system rules.
“The bill makes targeted, responsible reforms to support better economic, fiscal and regulatory outcomes.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
14 speakers · 16 contributions · 14 oppose
Coalition
14 speakers · 16 contributions · 14 oppose
-
Luke Howarth ★ 2 contributions Luke Howarth says the coalition will oppose the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and imposes an unfair, unindexed tax that he says will hurt young people, farmers and small business owners.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Luke Howarth on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Luke Howarth says the coalition will oppose the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and imposes an unfair, unindexed tax that he says will hurt young people, farmers and small business owners. He argues the changes shift the goalposts on retirement savings and should not go ahead without a mandate.
“There is no argument about the importance of the stability of our retirement system and the importance that it has in ensuring that future Australian governments don't have increasing levels of welfare. We want every Australian to be able to have the support they need and to be able to fund the decent retirement that they need. The stability of that system is being undermined by the Albanese Labor government, and the trust of governments is undermined when prime ministers and politicians break election promises, and that is what this is about. The Prime Minister said one thing before the election, and he's doing a very different thing now that he's in government. It's not good enough, and I'll leave it at that. We'll be voting against the bill.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Luke Howarth opposes the bill, calling it a broken election promise that doubles tax on some Australians' retirement savings and even taxes unrealised capital gains. He argues superannuation should reduce pressure on the budget, not be used to raise revenue.
“It's sad that we have to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, because it is a broken election promise from the government. The Albanese Labor government said that they would not be changing super; there would be no major changes. This is a major change with what they're proposing. We will be moving amendments when the time is appropriate. We will be moving amendments to make sure that we hold the government to account. To everyone that's going to be affected by these changes: the amendments that we move will be supporting you.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Michael McCormack McCormack says the coalition will oppose the bill because it is a broken promise and a tax grab that would hit farmers and regional Australians, especially through taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax..
“Regional Australians see through this legislation. If this wasn't simply a cash grab by Labor, the government would do the right thing, the honest thing, and index the threshold to inflation. But they just won't. The coalition is not supporting this. Why would we? Why would we support yet another tax? Why would we support yet another cash grab? Why would we support something that is going to hurt our farmers such that they may have to sell part or all of their land simply to pay the unrealised gain, the tax that Labor is going to impose on them?”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Garth Hamilton Hamilton opposes the bill, arguing that taxing unrealised superannuation gains is unfair and will hit family farms, young people and regional investors hardest.
“I am angry. Absolutely. I want this point to be on record because I want to be able to say: 'You guys turned your back on these people. You turned your back on them, every single one of you. There was a chance you had to change these ridiculous laws, and you didn't.' This is completely on the government. They've ignored the experts.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Aaron Violi Violi opposes the bill, saying it breaks Labor's promise to leave super alone and undermines confidence by taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. without indexation.
“To be clear: this legislation will force people to sell their assets based on paper profits, and it's a disgrace. We talk about super and we talk about allowing people to retire. Well, this government is cutting the retirement out of farmers and small-business owners in my community. It's making their lives harder. Those opposite—economists—know that it's not practical to tax unrealised capital gains, but they'll wave it through. They'll support their Treasurer and their Prime Minister because they don't want to rock the boat. Let's be really clear about this: the Treasurer is making these changes so he can get some paper savings in the budget and spend it somewhere else. We all know that those paper savings are not going to be delivered, because people change their tax arrangements, but those opposite are prepared to throw Australian farmers and small-business owners under the bus for their own needs. They've got two options: either they're out of touch or they don't care. Both reasons are an absolute disgrace.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sam Birrell Sam Birrell opposes the bill because he says it is a broken promise that introduces an unfair tax on superannuation, especially for family farms held in self-managed super funds and for young Australians whose balances may be caught later.
“But it doesn't matter how many pretty ribbons you use to tie this up. This package has at its core a broken promise, because they said they weren't going to touch super, and a new and unfair tax. It's an attack on agriculture and an attack on the aspirations of young Australians, and I won't be supporting this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Andrew Willcox Andrew Willcox opposes the bill and says it should be sent back because it is bad for farmers, graziers and young people, and because it undermines confidence in the superannuation system.
“This is bad legislation. It's bad for farmers. It's bad for the graziers. For young people, it instils no confidence. I don't think young people have got confidence in this government anyway, and rightly so. That lack of confidence is very well founded. But please get behind this. Make sure you vote against it. Come on, fellas. You can do it. Vote against it. Stand up to your party. That's it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Melissa Price Melissa Price says the coalition will oppose the bill because it raises superannuation taxes, hits younger Australians and self-managed funds, and does nothing to help cost of living.
“To conclude, I will not be supporting these bills—how could you possibly? They do nothing to combat the cost of living, which is what the government should be focused on, and will disproportionately impact younger Australians—as if they are not doing it tough enough. They represent a terrible betrayal of trust and only serve to fuel Labor's unhealthy spending addiction. Things never change. Remember, when Labor run out of money they come after yours.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Bert Van Manen Van Manen opposes the bill because he says it unfairly penalises people who have saved through superannuation, especially those with illiquid assets, and would force some to sell assets to pay a tax on unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax..
“As I said earlier, there will be a disproportionate effect from this. I can go out and invest in a listed property trust or any other listed asset that has illiquid assets in it, and the managers of that fund don't have this burden. That is a complete and utter disgrace, and the government should hang its head in shame. I am proud that as a coalition we are opposing this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Nola Marino 2 contributions Marino opposes the bill, arguing it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation, taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., and will hit younger Australians, small businesses, farmers and self-managed super funds.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nola Marino on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Marino opposes the bill, saying Labor has broken a promise and that changing superannuation rules will undermine trust in the retirement system. She argues people, especially younger savers, will lose confidence if governments keep altering the rules.
“What we have here is what they have both spoken about, another of Labor's broken promises. It is a very serious broken promise, as we have just heard from the previous speakers, because it actually undermines people's confidence in our superannuation system.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Marino opposes the bill, arguing it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation, taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., and will hit younger Australians, small businesses, farmers and self-managed super funds. She says it will damage confidence in the retirement system and set a dangerous precedent for taxing other unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax..
“So there are many obviously intended consequences of this bill and the measures in it, and I suspect there are many more unintended consequences that, unfortunately, those who put this on the table don't actually understand the implications of. I am very concerned about what's next when we talk about taxing of unrealised gains.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Jenny Ware Jenny Ware opposes the bill, saying it breaks an election promise, fails to index the $3 million threshold, and unfairly taxes unrealised capital gains.
“At the outset, I will be opposing these bills. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 has the stated intention to reduce the tax concessions on total superannuation balances which exceed $3 million. In effect, this means that instead of paying 15 per cent, which is the existing rate on balances over $3 million, the tax rate will be doubled. There are three main reasons why I say that this bill should be opposed. Firstly, it represents a broken election promise—yet another broken election promise. Secondly, the $3 million threshold figure is not indexed. Thirdly, and lastly, it also taxes unrealised capital gains.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Terry Young Terry Young opposes the bill and says it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation while imposing an unfair tax on unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. above $3 million.
“Research has revealed that, when it comes to super, Australians trust themselves first, super funds second and government last. We must empower Australians to make decisions about their own financial future first, not governments. We need economic policies that support small-business aspiration and entrepreneurship; that reward work, not more welfare; that contain growth in government spending and government overreach; that deliver an incentive based tax system that returns bracket creep and supports lower, fairer taxes; and that exemplify the coalition's long-held mantra of allowing Australians to keep more of what they earn—which I note has been stolen in the last six months by the Labor party, which, of course, is the highest form of flattery. Australians need a government and policies that support aspiration and back business to create jobs, and this bill and this Labor government do the opposite. I will not be supporting this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Keith Wolahan Wolahan opposes the bill, arguing that it breaks a promise on superannuation and will hit far more people than the government claims because the $3 million threshold is not indexed.
“The key issue with this bill, in addition to the broken promise and taxing on unrealised capital gains, is the lack of indexing. Three million dollars may seem like a lot of money now, but without indexing that will affect much more than 80,000 people. In fact, it will affect two million people.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Gillespie Gillespie opposes the bill and says it cannot be supported because it taxes unrealised capital gains, lifts superannuation tax on balances above $3 million, and would hurt long-term savers and family businesses.
“We need to realise that when bad legislation comes before this place you don't try to short-circuit the process. At least they're not guillotining the debate on this one as they did on the last bill. But this is a bad bill. It can't be supported. If they were to amend some of these rules then yes, we would consider them, if it was for the good of the economy. It's just a question of a tax-hungry government who will tax you more for longer, and you'll have less of your money if you vote for this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Keith Pitt Keith Pitt opposes the bill, saying the government is unfairly taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. in superannuation and would force self-managed super fund holders to sell assets to pay tax bills.
“I oppose this bill. It is abhorrent. It is a ridiculous decision. It should be absolutely panned across the country. Who are they attacking? They are attacking hardworking Australians that are trying to get ahead and are actually investing in assets that are of benefit to the nation, including residential housing.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
1 speaker · 1 mixed
Greens
1 speaker · 1 mixed
-
Max Chandler-Mather Chandler-Mather says the bill is a missed opportunity that does not meaningfully fix unfair superannuation tax concessions, and he argues the government must also end tax breaks for property investors if it wants the package to proceed.
“If the government wants this timid legislation to pass, it is going to have to end super tax breaks for property investors.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 1 support · 3 oppose · 4 mixed
Minor parties and independents
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 1 support · 3 oppose · 4 mixed
-
Allegra Spender ★ Spender opposes the bill in its current form because she says taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., the lack of a clawback, and the missing indexation make it badly designed and harmful to startups and scale-ups.
“That is why I will not support this bill in its current form, though in principle I agree with what the government intends: trying to shift the tax burden away from young working Australians, which is where we should all be trying to shift the tax burden from.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Russell Broadbent Broadbent opposes the bill, saying it breaks Labor's pre-election promise not to change superannuation and would unfairly hit farmers and self-managed super fund holders.
“This bill, like other policy themes under the Labor government, discourages farmers from doing their honourable work on our behalf. Worse, it disproportionately poses a serious threat to the next generation of farmers, which I'm sure the member for Forrest will bring up too.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Monique Ryan ★ Ryan supports the bill and says better targeting superannuation tax concessions is a sensible step toward making the system fairer.
“Ultimately, these bills do take important steps towards making the superannuation system more equitable and more aligned with the object of superannuation—that is, a mechanism for retirement savings and not primarily a wealth creation strategy. The fact is that most of the value of these tax concessions does flow to those who have above median incomes. Unaddressed, they will increase over time. That inequity does warrant urgent government attention. Better targeting of tax concessions, now, is a sensible way forward. It is, however, frustrating that this worthwhile move is conflated with a difficult and messy side issue: the taxing of unrealised gains. I call on the government to review this proposal as a matter of urgency. I commend the bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kate Chaney Chaney says she supports the idea of capping superannuation tax breaks but will not back the bill in its current form because she thinks taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., double taxation, no indexation and no transition period make it unfair and impractical.
“I have no problem with putting a cap on superannuation tax breaks above a certain level, but it has to be practical and fair. I'm disappointed that these issues have not been resolved through the consultation process, so as a result I will be supporting appropriate amendments, and, if they're not accepted, I will not be supporting this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Zoe Daniel Zoe Daniel says she supports the core idea of the bill, but will not support it because she is concerned about the lack of indexation and the precedent of taxing unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax..
“I support the second reading amendment proposed by the member for North Sydney on indexation, as well as her amendment on unrealised gains. I'm concerned that the government has not listened to consultation on these matters, appearing to have made rigid decisions about this legislation, even before consulting. So, on balance, while I do support the core principle of the bill, I am sufficiently concerned about these outstanding issues, particularly the precedent set by taxing unrealised gains, that I will not support it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Helen Haines Haines says she supports the purpose of the superannuation bill, but she will not back it in the House unless it is amended to index the $3 million threshold and exclude agricultural land from the unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax. tax.
“The two problems I've identified can be addressed, first, by indexing the $3 million threshold and, second, by excluding agricultural land assets from the calculation of total superannuation balance using the Australian Taxation Office's existing definition of 'primary production asset'. These, I believe, are reasonable and simple amendments that would not take away from the important intent of the bill: to make sure our superannuation system fulfils its objective of providing for people in their retirement. I'm disappointed that the government has failed to take on these recommendations, but I'm hopeful that they will in the Senate. These are reasonable amendments that are being put before the House. I think it is the role of parliament, after all, to debate, to improve and to pass good law that benefits all Australians. So until this bill is improved, I won't be supporting it in the House of Representatives, and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to make the changes necessary so that, ultimately, I can support it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kylea Tink 2 contributions Kylea Tink opposes the bill in its current form, arguing it is unfair and badly designed because it taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., lacks indexation, and would hit self-managed super funds, farmers and small business owners with illiquid assets.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Kylea Tink on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Kylea Tink opposes the bill in its current form, arguing it is unfair and badly designed because it taxes unrealised gainsPaper increases in the value of an asset before it is sold, which the bill would have counted when working out the new super tax., lacks indexation, and would hit self-managed super funds, farmers and small business owners with illiquid assets. She says it could work only if the government accepts her amendments, but she cannot vote for it as drafted.
“I do not believe I can vote in favour of this legislation as long as it contains this power.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Tink says she is broadly comfortable with the idea of the bill, but argues its design is inelegant and poorly conceived and could create unintended tax and superannuation precedents. She supports the aim of reducing excessive super concessions, but is uneasy about the mechanics, the lack of government consultation, and the risk to self-managed super funds.
“With all of that said, I recognise that this legislation proposes to rein back generous tax breaks for super balances that are beyond what is currently perceived as necessary to fund a comfortable retirement, and generally I'm comfortable with that idea, even if in its execution it's inelegant. However, both I and my community believe the mechanics proposed in this bill are poorly conceived and will result in unintended consequences and that the government's complete refusal to enter into constructive discussions about how this legislation could better work only adds weight to the arguments that this legislation is about much more than large balances.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Rebekha Sharkie Sharkie says Centre Alliance is not opposing the bill outright, but wants it made fairer with indexation, a transition period and changes to the unrealised-gains approach.
“My other concern with this piece of legislation is that there is no transition period. Those who are already retired may not be able to restructure their superannuation arrangements. As I said previously, businesses and farmers will I think be disproportionately negatively affected by this legislation. I hope the government addresses particularly the indexation part of this bill. What might seem like a bit of a tax on very wealthy people now will perhaps in decades to come not be considered so. It's very difficult for governments to walk away from tax revenue streams. So I think if we're going to do this piece of legislation we need to make it fairer. I think we need to have indexation and I think we need to address the issue with respect to unrealised gains. Thank you.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- House of Representatives
- 30 Nov 2023
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 30 Nov 2023
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 15 May 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 16 May 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 16 May 2024
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 76 to 64.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 09 Oct 2024
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
- 09 Oct 2024
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 75 to 62.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 10 Oct 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 10 Oct 2024
Senate · Second reading moved : Bill divided into two bills 28/11/24
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 21 July 2025
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/05/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (7 Dec 2023): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10 May 2024)
APH bill page notes