Payment rules by instrument
Some proposed amendments wanted payment-system rules to be made through legislative instruments rather than lighter notifiable instruments, so Parliament would have stronger oversight.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures)
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Budget, tax & economy
What does this bill do?
The residual bill would let the ACNCThe Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, whose protected-information disclosure rules would change under the bill. disclose limited information about recognised assessment activityAn ACNC compliance or assessment activity where the bill would allow limited public disclosure if the statutory test is met. for charities where a public harm test is met.
Why was it introduced?
The original Treasury package combined superannuation tax measures with several miscellaneous Treasury reforms. After the Senate process split the package, this bill entry covered the residual miscellaneous measures: charity-regulator disclosures, less frequent FRAAThe Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, which reviews ASIC and APRA. The bill would move those reviews to a five-year cycle. reviews, technical Treasury fixes, foreign financial services licensing exemptions and modernised payments regulation.
Broader context
The government introduced a broad Treasury package on 30 November 2023. Debate in the House was dominated by the superannuation tax schedules, but the package also contained the miscellaneous charity, regulator-review, financial-services and payments measures that later sat behind this bill entry after the Senate process split the package on 28 November 2024. The residual bill did not complete the parliamentary process and lapsed on 21 July 2025.
Key criticism
The main recorded criticism during House debate targeted the superannuation schedules in the original combined package, not the residual miscellaneous-measures bill as later split. For the residual measures, the clearest scrutiny points were narrower: whether payments rules should use stronger legislative instruments, whether ASIC and APRA reviews should remain annual, and whether foreign-provider licensing exemptions had adequate safeguards.
Who supported it?
The government 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?
-
The residual bill would let the ACNCThe Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, whose protected-information disclosure rules would change under the bill. disclose limited information about recognised assessment activityAn ACNC compliance or assessment activity where the bill would allow limited public disclosure if the statutory test is met. for charities where a public harm test is met.
-
It would reduce how often the Financial Regulator Assessment AuthorityThe Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, which reviews ASIC and APRA. The bill would move those reviews to a five-year cycle. reviews ASIC and APRA, moving those reviews to a five-year cycle.
-
It would make minor Treasury portfolio fixes across consumer, corporations, GST, fuel tax and income tax law.
-
It would create targeted Australian financial services licensing exemptions for some foreign financial services providers, including comparable-regulator, professional-investor and market-maker exemptions.
-
It would modernise payments regulation by expanding the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act so government and the Reserve Bank could respond to newer payment services and risks.
Show source excerpts
-
Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the ACNC Act to provide two new exceptions for the public disclosure of protected ACNC information about new and ongoing investigations.
Explanatory memorandum for the original Treasury package -
Schedule 5 to the Bill amends the FRAA Act to reduce the frequency of FRAA’s reviews of ASIC and APRA to every five years.
Explanatory memorandum for the original Treasury package -
Schedule 6 to the Bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation. The amendments simplify provisions, clarify intended outcomes and reduce red tape.
Explanatory memorandum for the original Treasury package -
Schedule 7 to the Bill provides certainty for foreign financial services providers by establishing three exemptions from the requirement to hold an AFS licence – the comparable regulator exemption; the professional investor exemption; and the market maker exemption.
Explanatory memorandum for the original Treasury package -
Schedule 8 to the Bill amends the PSRA to modernise the payments regulatory framework, ensuring it is fit-for-purpose and can address emerging risks related to payments.
Explanatory memorandum for the original Treasury package
Context
Broader context for this bill
The government introduced a broad Treasury package on 30 November 2023. Debate in the House was dominated by the superannuation tax schedules, but the package also contained the miscellaneous charity, regulator-review, financial-services and payments measures that later sat behind this bill entry after the Senate process split the package on 28 November 2024. The residual bill did not complete the parliamentary process and lapsed on 21 July 2025.
- 30 Nov 2023
Government introduces a broad Treasury package
The original bill combined superannuation tax measures with charity, regulator-review, financial-services, payments and technical Treasury amendments.
Hansard ↗ - 15 May 2024
House debate focuses on the superannuation schedules
Most second-reading criticism centred on the package’s proposed tax on superannuation balances above $3 million, before the package was later split.
Hansard ↗ - 09 Oct 2024
House passes the combined package
The House completed consideration and sent the package to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 28 Nov 2024
Senate process splits the package
The APH record says the bill was divided into two bills, separating the package during the Senate stage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 21 July 2025
Residual bill lapses
The bill did not complete Parliament and lapsed at the end of the parliamentary term.
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 recorded criticism during House debate targeted the superannuation schedules in the original combined package, not the residual miscellaneous-measures bill as later split. For the residual measures, the clearest scrutiny points were narrower: whether payments rules should use stronger legislative instruments, whether ASIC and APRA reviews should remain annual, and whether foreign-provider licensing exemptions had adequate safeguards.
Because the bill was divided later, many speeches discuss the original combined package rather than only the residual miscellaneous-measures bill.
Regulator reviews less frequent
The bill reduced FRAAThe Financial Regulator Assessment Authority, which reviews ASIC and APRA. The bill would move those reviews to a five-year cycle. reviews of ASIC and APRA to every five years. Critics could argue this lowered routine external scrutiny of major financial regulators.
Foreign-provider exemptions need safeguards
The foreign financial services exemptions were intended to reduce friction, but they also depended on conditions to ensure overseas providers serving Australian markets acted efficiently, honestly and fairly.
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 Index the super tax threshold
Defeated 9 to 52. Support came from Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Index the super tax threshold
These amendments would have changed how the new super tax applies over time by preventing the threshold from being frozen as values rise.
Party Aye / No
Independent 7 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Unknown 1 / 5
Labor 0 / 46
Defeated Remove the superannuation package
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 the superannuation package
If agreed, the amendments would have stripped out the main superannuation changes, including the higher tax on large balances.
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 and defer super 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 and defer super tax
These amendments would have softened the new super tax by adding review and payment-deferral safeguards for affected funds.
Party Aye / No
Unknown 22 / 8
Liberal Party 19 / 0
Nationals 12 / 0
Independent 7 / 2
Labor 0 / 64
Defeated Call for fairer super tax settings
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
Call for fairer super tax settings
Because this was a second-reading statement vote, it expressed the House's position on the policy rather than directly changing the bill text.
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, responsible reforms across tax, charities regulation, financial oversight and payments.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Luke Howarth
Howarth says the coalition will vote against the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and unfairly raises tax on retirement savings, especially for self-managed super fund holders, farmers and younger Australians.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Opposes
Allegra Spender
Spender says she cannot support the bill in its current form because of design problems such as taxing unrealised gains, lack of clawback, no indexation, and uncertainty for final salary pensions.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Opposes
Michael McCormack
Michael McCormack opposes the bill, saying it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation and would unfairly hit farmers and regional Australians by taxing unrealised gains.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
3 speakers · 1 support · 2 unclear
Labor
3 speakers · 1 support · 2 unclear
-
Graham Perrett Perrett speaks in favour of the superannuation and regulatory reforms in this speech, but the supplied paragraphs are about other bills rather than the Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, so his position on the target bill is not clear from this text.
“The extensive measures included in these amendments are important to safeguard our superannuation system. They promote confidence in the not-for-profit sector and improve outcomes for hardworking Australians. I commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jenny McAllister McAllister does not actually speak to the target bill in the incorporated text, so her position on it is unclear.
“That these bills be now read a second time.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Stephen Jones ★ Stephen Jones supports the bill, saying it makes targeted, responsible reforms across tax, charities regulation, financial oversight and payments.
“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 · 12 oppose · 2 unclear
Coalition
14 speakers · 16 contributions · 12 oppose · 2 unclear
-
Luke Howarth ★ 2 contributions Howarth says the coalition will vote against the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and unfairly raises tax on retirement savings, especially for self-managed super fund holders, farmers and younger Australians.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Luke Howarth on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Howarth says the coalition will vote against the bill because it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuation and unfairly raises tax on retirement savings, especially for self-managed super fund holders, farmers and younger Australians. He argues the measure is a bad tax on unrealised gains and says it should not proceed without a mandate from voters.
“We'll be voting against the bill.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Luke Howarth opposes the bill, saying it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation and unfairly raises tax on Australians' retirement savings. He argues the change is a tax on unrealised gains that uses super to fill budget gaps rather than help Australians save for retirement.
“The big issue here is that this is a broken promise. It's a doubling of taxation on some Australians' retirement savings. It is a tax on hardworking Australians. Labor's division 296 tax is an unindexed wealth tax affecting countless Australians. It is a tax on unrealised capital gains, which is completely unheard of. This has never been done before. For those lucky enough to have a superannuation balance of a certain amount, they will be hit with a tax on unrealised capital gains. For everyone else, they face unindexed annual tax on unrealised capital gains. It is a tax on aspiration. Superannuation belongs to Australians. It is not the Albanese government's money, it is not the Prime Minister's money and it is certainly not the Treasurer's money. Superannuation is Australians' money, and the Albanese Labor government are not respecting that—that it belongs to Australians, not the government.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Michael McCormack ★ Michael McCormack opposes the bill, saying it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation and would unfairly hit farmers and regional Australians by taxing unrealised gains.
“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 it unfairly taxes unrealised gains, hurts family farms and young superannuation members, and risks driving away investment.
“What we have here now is a clear separation. There could not be a clearer choice for regional Queensland: those who have chosen to tax farmers in an unreasonable and unfair way and those who have stood up for them. I'm very happy to be able to say that I have stood up for my farming communities.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Aaron Violi Violi says the opposition will not support the bill because it breaks Labor's promise on superannuation, undermines confidence in the system, and taxes unrealised gains in a way he says will hit farmers and small business owners.
“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 Birrell does not express a clear view on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 itself because the speech text is about a different superannuation bill.
“This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and a related bill, is an example of that.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Andrew Willcox Andrew Willcox opposes the bill and urges the House to vote against it, saying it is bad legislation that would undermine superannuation and hurt farmers, graziers and younger Australians.
“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 she will not support the bill, arguing it is a broken promise that raises superannuation taxes, hits younger Australians and self-managed funds, and does nothing to ease cost-of-living pressure.
“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.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Bert Van Manen Van Manen says the Coalition will oppose the bill because its first three schedules impose a punitive tax on super balances above $3 million, especially through taxing unrealised capital gains.
“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 superannuation promise and will hit young Australians, small businesses, farmers and self-managed super fund holders by taxing unrealised gains.
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 it is another Labor broken promise that undermines confidence in the superannuation system. She argues the government is changing the rules again and cannot be trusted on its commitments.
“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 superannuation promise and will hit young Australians, small businesses, farmers and self-managed super fund holders by taxing unrealised gains. She says it is unfair, retrospective and sets a dangerous precedent for more taxes on unrealised gains.
“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 This speech does not address the target bill; it is a speech opposing a different superannuation bill and criticising it as a broken promise, unfair indexing, and a tax on unrealised gains.
“At the outset, I will be opposing these bills.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Terry Young Terry Young opposes the bill, saying it unfairly taxes unrealised gains in superannuation, hurts self-managed super funds and small business, and will damage workers and future savers.
“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, saying it breaks a promise on superannuation and introduces tax on unrealised gains without indexing, which he argues will hit far more people over time.
“So this decision, this proposal, on superannuation also affects young people. Young people are quite financially literate, and that's one of the good things about social media. I've spoken to many young people in high school or at university who are learning about the great benefits of compound returns. The flip side of that is the horrible losses that can come for people with compound debt, and that is borne out particularly in credit card debt. The key issue with this bill, in addition to the broken promise and taxing on unrealised capital gains, is the lack of indexing.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Gillespie Gillespie opposes the bill, saying it is bad tax legislation that should not be supported.
“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.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Keith Pitt The supplied speech text does not appear to address the target bill, so Keith Pitt's position on that bill is unclear from the material provided.
“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 too timid and falls short of taxing wealthy super balances fairly, but he links any support for it to ending super tax breaks for property investors.
“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 · 4 oppose · 4 mixed
Minor parties and independents
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 4 oppose · 4 mixed
-
Allegra Spender ★ Spender says she cannot support the bill in its current form because of design problems such as taxing unrealised gains, lack of clawback, no indexation, and uncertainty for final salary pensions.
“There are reasons I was inclined to support the bill, the primary of these being intergenerational inequity in our tax system. This is an issue of grave concern to my community. However, I cannot support the bill in its current form, primarily because of its poor design, particularly the taxing of unrealised gains and the lack of a clawback mechanism for that tax, the lack of indexing and the ambiguity as to whether final salary pensions will be subject to the same conditions.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Russell Broadbent Broadbent opposes the bill, saying it discourages farmers from doing their work and will hurt the next generation of farmers.
“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. There's now enough of the next generation of farmers who don't want to continue on the farm because they know what their mums and dads have been through to get them to that point. They have always helped out on the farms, as all kids on farms do. They're helpers on the farm. It's been a family commitment. But, because they have seen how hard it is to make money on a farm today, they want to be doctors and lawyers and all those sorts of things, as the song goes. They don't necessarily want to be farmers. So you haven't got the family coming through saying, 'I want to be a farmer.' Under this proposal, if you make it even harder for farmers and the next generation, they're going to walk away.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Monique Ryan Ryan supports the superannuation changes discussed in the speech in principle, but says she is not happy with the unrealised-gains element and wants that proposal reviewed urgently.
“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.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kate Chaney Chaney says she would support the bill only if her concerns are fixed, but she will not back it as drafted because she objects to taxing unrealised gains, the risk of double taxation, the lack of indexation, and no transition period.
“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 bill's core principle but will not support it because she thinks the government failed to listen on key issues, especially indexation and the precedent of taxing unrealised gains.
“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 cannot support the bill as drafted and wants amendments before backing it, especially to fix indexing and the treatment of farming super assets.
“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 Tink says she cannot support the bill in its current form because it taxes unrealised gains, lacks indexation, and would create unfair liquidity problems for people with large super balances, especially farmers and small business owners.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Kylea Tink on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Tink says she cannot support the bill in its current form because it taxes unrealised gains, lacks indexation, and would create unfair liquidity problems for people with large super balances, especially farmers and small business owners. She says the reform could work only if it is amended, so she moves amendments instead of backing the bill 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 her community accepts the aim of the reform, but she is worried the bill is poorly designed, could create bad tax precedents, and would add complexity and unintended consequences. She criticises the government for refusing constructive discussion and says the measures look like a direct attack on 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 she could support the principle of the tax changes, but only if the bill is made fairer with indexation, a transition period and changes to avoid taxing unrealised gains.
“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