Higher tax on retirement savings
Opponents argued that the new tax unfairly targets private savings and self-managed super funds, and was not put to voters at the election.
This bill became law on Mar 13th, 2026.
Budget, tax & economy
People with up to $3 million in super keep the existing tax rate of up to 15 per cent on their fund’s earnings.
Jim Chalmers (Australian Labor Party) said the government wanted to make retirement savings fairer and more sustainable by reducing tax breaks for very large balances and helping people on low incomes. The government estimated 1.3 million people would benefit from the larger low-income payment, taking total eligibility to 3.1 million. It said affected workers could gain around $15,000 by retirement, depending on their earnings over their career. The higher tax on large balances was expected to raise $2.15 billion over five years.
Australia already used concessional superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. tax treatment and the Low Income SuperannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. Tax Offset, but very large balances attracted criticism as tax shelters and an earlier proposal to tax unrealised gains faced sustained opposition from the Coalition, superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. sector, farmers, small businesses and others. The Government responded with taxes on future earnings above indexed $3 million and $10 million thresholds, a larger LISTO, and an Act that received Royal Assent on 13 March 2026, with the new tax starting in 2026–27.
Tim Wilson (Liberal Party) argued that the new tax had not been put to voters and would weaken trust in stable retirement rules. He said the larger payment for low-income workers was welcome but too modest to ease immediate living costs. He also raised concerns about added uncertainty for surviving spouses and people receiving benefits after becoming permanently unable to work. Nick McKim (Australian Greens) argued from the other direction: the bill still left very wealthy account holders paying too little tax and did not seriously reduce inequality.
Jim Chalmers MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, UAP.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 13 Mar 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
30 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People with up to $3 million in super keep the existing tax rate of up to 15 per cent on their fund’s earnings.
People with $3 million to $10 million in super face a tax rate of up to 30 per cent on the relevant earnings from 2026–27.
People with more than $10 million in super face a tax rate of up to 40 per cent on the relevant earnings from 2026–27.
People affected by the new tax have the $3 million and $10 million thresholds adjusted annually for inflation.
Lower-income workers can qualify for the low-income superannuation tax offsetA government payment that refunds some tax paid on an eligible worker’s super contributions., a government payment into super, on incomes up to $45,000. The limit was $37,000.
Lower-income workers can receive up to $810 through that payment from 2027–28, up from $500.
Future recipients have the payment settings linked to income-tax thresholds and the compulsory employer super rate, allowing them to adjust automatically.
Schedules 1 to 3 to the Bill and the Imposition Bill reduce the tax concessions available to individuals with TSBs exceeding $3 million. From the 2026-27 income year onwards, the headline concessional tax rates applying to superannuation earnings are: for superannuation balances up to the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold—up to 15 per cent on earnings (unchanged from current tax arrangements); for superannuation balances between the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold and the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold—up to an overall 30 per cent onTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) explanatory memorandum
Schedules 1 to 3 to the Bill and the Imposition Bill reduce the tax concessions available to individuals with TSBs exceeding $3 million. From the 2026-27 income year onwards, the headline concessional tax rates applying to superannuation earnings are: for superannuation balances up to the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold—up to 15 per cent on earnings (unchanged from current tax arrangements); for superannuation balances between the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold and the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold—up to an overall 30 per cent onTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) explanatory memorandum
Schedules 1 to 3 to the Bill and the Imposition Bill reduce the tax concessions available to individuals with TSBs exceeding $3 million. From the 2026-27 income year onwards, the headline concessional tax rates applying to superannuation earnings are: for superannuation balances up to the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold—up to 15 per cent on earnings (unchanged from current tax arrangements); for superannuation balances between the $3 million large superannuation balance threshold and the $10 million very large superannuation balance threshold—up to an overall 30 per cent onTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) explanatory memorandum
Large superannuation balance threshold and very large superannuation balance threshold 296‑30 Large superannuation balance threshold The large superannuation balance threshold is: (a) for the 2026‑27 income year—$3,000,000; or (b) for the 2027‑28 income year or a later income year—the amount worked out by indexing annually the amount mentioned in paragraph (a). Note: Subdivision 960‑M shows how to index amounts. However, annual indexation does not necessarily increase the amount of the threshold: see section 960‑285. 296‑35 Very large superannuation balance threshold The very large supeTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Act 2026
Superannuation (Government Co‑contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003 1 Paragraph 12C(1)(b) and subparagraph 12C(2)(c)(i) Omit “$37,000”, substitute “the dollar amount mentioned in item 1 of the table for that income year in Part I of Schedule 7 to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986”.Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Act 2026
2 Paragraph 12E(2)(b) Omit “$500—$500”, substitute “the amount worked out under subsection (3A) for that income year—the amount worked out under subsection (3A) for that income year”. 3 After subsection 12E(3) (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) the amount for an income year is the amount worked out using the formula: eligibility threshold amount for income year means the dollar amount mentioned in item 1 of the table for that income year in Part I of Schedule 7 to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986. charge percentage has the same meaning as in subsection 17A(2) of the Superannuation GuaTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Act 2026
1 Paragraph 12C(1)(b) and subparagraph 12C(2)(c)(i) Omit “$37,000”, substitute “the dollar amount mentioned in item 1 of the table for that income year in Part I of Schedule 7 to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986”. 2 Paragraph 12E(2)(b) Omit “$500—$500”, substitute “the amount worked out under subsection (3A) for that income year—the amount worked out under subsection (3A) for that income year”. 3 After subsection 12E(3) (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) the amount for an income year is the amount worked out using the formula: eligibility threshold amount for income year means the doTreasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Act 2026
Context
Australia already used concessional superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. tax treatment and the Low Income SuperannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. Tax Offset, but very large balances attracted criticism as tax shelters and an earlier proposal to tax unrealised gains faced sustained opposition from the Coalition, superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. sector, farmers, small businesses and others. The Government responded with taxes on future earnings above indexed $3 million and $10 million thresholds, a larger LISTO, and an Act that received Royal Assent on 13 March 2026, with the new tax starting in 2026–27.
Earlier super tax bills fail in the Senate
Hansard recorded that the bills did not pass through the Senate in the last parliament and later returned with amendments.
Hansard ↗Jim Chalmers MP introduces the bill
Jim Chalmers MP introduced the super reforms in the House of Representatives, restarting their parliamentary consideration.
Hansard ↗Government abandons tax on unrealised gains
Speakers told the House that Coalition, superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement.-sector, small-business, farmer and community pressure led the government to drop taxing unrealised gains and freeze threshold indexationRegular adjustment of an amount for inflation..
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage of the reforms.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns bill into Act
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Parliamentary timeline ↗New tax begins and low-income support expands
The new tax starts in 2026–27, while from 1 July 2027 the LISTO maximum rises to $810 and its income threshold increases to $45,000.
Bill summary and Hansard ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
It looked at the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Considered in published report
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
It looked at the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Considered in published report
Recorded vote: 95 to 35.
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
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 33 to 22.
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
Recorded vote: 33 to 22.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Tim Wilson (Liberal Party) argued that the new tax had not been put to voters and would weaken trust in stable retirement rules. He said the larger payment for low-income workers was welcome but too modest to ease immediate living costs. He also raised concerns about added uncertainty for surviving spouses and people receiving benefits after becoming permanently unable to work. Nick McKim (Australian Greens) argued from the other direction: the bill still left very wealthy account holders paying too little tax and did not seriously reduce inequality.
The Liberal criticism focused on trust, immediate household pressures and risks for particular recipients. The Australian Greens supported the bill but said it did not go far enough, while the government said fewer than half of one per cent of Australians would face the higher tax.
Higher tax on retirement savings
Opponents argued that the new tax unfairly targets private savings and self-managed super funds, and was not put to voters at the election.
Risk to farmers and asset-backed funds
The concern was that taxing large super balances could harm farmers and other people whose retirement wealth is held in valuable assets rather than readily available cash.
Reform does not go far enough
The Greens said the bill barely addressed a tax system they argued was worsening intergenerational inequality, although they ultimately supported its passage.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 33 to 22. Support came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and UAP.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 95 to 35. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Passed 33 to 22. Support came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and UAP.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 37 to 92. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating the proposal preserved the bill's intended coverage of both existing and newly acquired superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. interests.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 9 to 83. Support came from Centre Alliance and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The defeat meant the bill proceeded without a special withdrawal opportunity for people affected by the large-balance threshold.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Senate
Defeated 4 to 42. Support came from One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
Those points of the One Nation amendment were not agreed.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Defeated 20 to 32. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents.
The rest of the One Nation amendment was not agreed.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Passed 33 to 22. Support came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and UAP.
The vote kept the core schedules intact and prevented a consequential proposal to remove them from being put.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Fatima Payman’s amendments would have removed the spouse contribution tax offset and the ability to carry forward unused limits on lower-taxed contributions. They were defeated on the voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Fatima Payman’s proposed removal of the spouse contribution offset and carried-forward contribution limits. The decision was made on the voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Jim Chalmers supports the bill because it would increase superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. assistance for low-income workers while reducing tax concessions on balances above $3 million, making the system fairer and more sustainable.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the coalition opposes the bill because it imposes an unjustified new tax on large superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. balances and creates risks for surviving spouses and disability benefit recipients.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill because it fairly reduces excessive tax concessions for high-value superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. funds while preserving support for a dignified retirement.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock supports the bill as a fairer approach to superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. tax concessions, praising the indexed high-balance threshold, removal of tax on unrealised gains and improved low-income offset.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
27 speakers · 31 contributions · 27 support
“These bills do exactly that. They deliver more help to more people. They better target concessions. They strengthen equity. They safeguard sustainability. For the factory worker, for the aged-care worker, for the young apprentice working to be a tradie, for the enrolled nurse, for the hospitality worker, for the shiftworker, for the miner, for the part timer and for the casual, these bills are changing Australia for the better. It's a reform that builds a stronger, fairer super system and I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. This legislation is about strengthening what is one of Australia's most important social institutions, our superannuation system. It's about fairness, boosting retirement savings for everyday Australians, closing loopholes that benefit the very wealthy and addressing structural inequalities that have left, in particular, many women retiring with significantly less super than they should have.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is the product of genuine consultation with communities like mine, and it reflects the collective spirit of Australians who want to see the superannuation system become stronger and even fairer so that it continues to deliver a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future, and not just some working Australians. Of the three pillars of retirement savings in this country—the age pension, super and personal savings and assets—super needs to be maintained as the driver, and this bill is part of the reform necessary to further the objective of an equitable and sustainable system, providing all working Australians with a dignified retirement. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For those of us who remember insecure work under WorkChoices—earning less than $10 an hour and responsible for paying our own superannuation out of that wage—the importance of a strong, enforceable and universal superannuation system is not theoretical; it is lived experience. It should be paid as it is earned, it should be preserved for retirement, and the concessions that support it should be equitable and sustainable. This legislation advances that purpose. I commend the bills to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australia's superannuation system is the envy of the world. This bill builds on that success by delivering more support to low-income workers through an increased LISTO while better targeting concessions to large balances. Together, these reforms ensure superannuation continues to provide a stronger, fairer and more secure retirement for millions of Australians both today and into the future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Deputy Speaker, I'd like to leave you with a statistic that demonstrates the purpose of this bill. There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the changes to the LISTO as there are people who have over $3 million in super. It is now time for those opposite to put their support behind a fairer super system, and I urge them to vote for Australians on low incomes, not to vote for bigger tax breaks for the few who have millions in their super funds.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Superannuation has reduced future pension pressure. It has increased household wealth. It has deepened capital markets. And it has given millions of Australians a tangible stake in our nation's prosperity. Superannuation is one of Australia's most important public policy achievements. That's why it's so important for us to confront any imbalances in the system when they do arise, and that's exactly what this bill does. It strengthens support where it's most needed. It moderates concessions where they are least justified. It modernises the system whilst respecting its very foundations. It's measured, targeted and principled. This bill ensures that the system remains strong, fair and sustainable for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 will increase tax concessions for workers on low incomes by boosting the low-income superannuation tax offset. The bill will also ensure that concessions for individuals with large balances above $3 million are better targeted and more equitable. Tax concessions for very large superannuation balances are increasing in cost and becoming less sustainable. At present super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year and will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. That's the reality of the current situation. Right now, around 38 per cent of the benefit from super tax concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners and 55 per cent goes to the top 20 per cent. These concessions were intended to support Australians in retirement, not provide tax concessions for wealth accumulation or estate planning.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Like all great reforms, it must be maintained, protected, and, when necessary, refined. That is what this bill does. It strengthens the integrity of the system and better targets concessions so they flow where they are actually needed. It lifts support for low-income workers and ensures the long-term sustainability of a system that is now one of the largest pools of retirement savings in the world. This is not radical; it is the next chapter in a proud story.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the moment, in Australia, the wealthiest 10 per cent of income earners receive $22 billion in tax breaks by transferring their income into superannuation rather than simply paying income tax on it like the rest of Australia. But the lowest 20 per cent of income earners receive only about $800 million in tax breaks despite the fact that that population of Australians is much larger than the wealthiest 10 per cent. So the system is stacked against workers, and is it any wonder that people feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can't make ends meet and that they feel like the system is stacked against them? Because it has been for too long, and our government is going to do something about that. I want Australian workers to know that we hear them. We hear what you're suffering, and we know what you're going through. We know that the system is stacked against you. We know that it unfairly favours the wealthy at the expense of workers. That is why we are changing the system. That is what this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, is all about. We are acting to rebalance the superannuation system unashamedly in favour of workers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Superannuation was never intended to operate as a tax shelter for large fortunes; it was designed to provide working Australians, ordinary Australians, with security and dignity in retirement, and those are principles that Labor is committed to. These reforms recognise that principle. They maintain concessional treatment for the vast majority of Australians while modestly reducing tax breaks for those with the very largest of super balances. Importantly, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 also strengthens support for low-income workers by increasing the low-income superannuation tax offset.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting and strengthening the integrity of superannuation. We believe super belongs to everyday Australians. Under Labor, it is improved, safeguarded and anchored to its purpose. Under the coalition, it was undermined, weakened and questioned. We strengthen superannuation; they stall it. We lift retirement incomes; they freeze it. We make sure that super works for each and every Australian. They want to transform it into a wealth accumulation tool for the privileged few. This bill draws that difference clearly. This is not radical reform; it is responsible and fair reform which supports hardworking, ordinary Australians—predominantly women and young Australians—who deserve a fairer deal. Labor built superannuation, Labor are strengthening it with this bill and Labor will always defend it from those who seek to undermine it because we are proud of our superannuation system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the changes in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill to the House. As the Albanese government members are fond of saying, myself included, we want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. The changes here make that possible, in addition to all of the other reforms our government has implemented to make that so. I'm sure this is a statement you've heard many times in this place, and it is something that we really do mean. We build on that mission today through helping low-income workers keep more of their superannuation whilst making the system stronger, fairer and more sustainable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“One of the most important things in this bill is what the LISTO does. Here we have an attempt to right that imbalance between the income tax that a worker would pay and what the tax rate is on that superannuation. In Forde, for instance, something like 11,353 people are going to benefit from the LISTO to the tune of something like $4.6 million. That's because the LISTO is about helping lower-income earners, somewhere around 60 per cent of whom, in Forde, are women. It is about lifting up the super balances of lower-income earners, particularly women.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As superannuation was built, it was never intended to be a vehicle for unlimited tax advantages. It was designed to support working Australians—cleaners, nurses, teachers, retail workers, tradies, carers—to ensure that older Australians could look forward to retirement with dignity and security. This bill strengthens that original purpose. It ensures that our superannuation system remains fair, sustainable and focused on delivering income in retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable way.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This side of the House stands with working people. We stand with the nurse, the apprentice, the retail worker, the single parent returning to work and young Australians starting their first job. Superannuation is not a loophole. It is not a shelter. It is not a privilege for the few. It is a pillar of economic security for the many. Labor built it, Labor strengthened it and Labor will defend it—stronger, fairer and more sustainable. I commend the bills to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Importantly, the revenue raised from these reforms will strengthen support for low- and middle-income workers. We are boosting the low-income super tax offset, the LISTO. We will increase the eligibility threshold to $45,000 and lift the maximum payment to $810. This will benefit more than three million Australians. In Holt, that includes early childhood educators in Narre Warren, retail workers in Cranbourne, hospitality staff in Hampton Park and aged-care workers right across my community. These are the people who keep our local economy running. Many are women. Many work part time. Many earn modest incomes while juggling family responsibilities. Analysis from the Super Members Council suggests that women will make up around 60 per cent of those benefiting from this reform, with some projected to be up to $60,000 better off in retirement after their working lives. That is real progress in closing the retirement gender gap. These reforms are about fairness. They reduce excessive tax concessions for the wealthiest 0.5 per cent. They strengthen retirement savings for millions of low-income workers. They protect the long-term sustainability of the system. They keep superannuation true to its purpose, delivering income for a dignified retirement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Steve Georganas on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Georganas does not express a substantive view on the bill in the supplied speech text, but his recorded vote in favour of its second reading indicates support.
“You won't take the interjection from the member opposite. You will listen to me for a moment. Again, you are veering way off the parameters. You've made that point. I don't want to take it any further. If I hear it again, I will take it further. I want you to remain within the parameters of the debate. We've heard your point. We heard it earlier. You've made the point. I've asked you to pull back a bit and stay within the parameters. I've given you plenty of leeway. Please don't abuse my kind leeway that I have given you, Member for Kooyong, and stay within the parameters of the bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Georganas supported the bill, as shown by his recorded vote for its second reading, although the supplied speech contains no substantive explanation of his position.
“I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. I've made it quite clear that you're not being relevant to the bill. I've made that point three times now. I don't want to take it any further. You can talk about the bill as it is within the parameters of the bill. You've made the point; we've heard you. You've made the point—you've made it—but you're continuing to raise issues completely outside of the parameters of the bill. I've allowed you to do so two or three times. So I ask that you now go back onto the bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Georganas supports the bill because it will increase superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. assistance for low-income workers, require super to be paid each payday and better target tax concessions for balances above $3 million, helping more workers retire with dignity.
“I rise to support this bill, unlike those on the opposite side who are not supporting this bill, based on what we've heard so far from different speeches yesterday and today. It doesn't surprise me that they're not supporting this bill. When you look at the history of superannuation and superannuation legislation in this House, and in the older house down the road where superannuation was first mooted, discussed and proposed in the Hawke-Keating years, it has been opposed every single way by the opposition. Every time there's been legislation in this House to better superannuation for workers, it's been opposed by the other side. So it's no surprise that they'll be opposing this. What are they opposing? They're opposing a better superannuation system for low-income workers. Why do those opposite not want low-income workers to have a better system and a super tax offset which means there'll be more money in their retirement so they can retire with dignity? If someone can tell me why that is wrong, maybe I can see the sense in it. But that's what this bill does.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“While the opposition wants to focus on the top half a percent, I'd rather focus on the 1.3 million Australians who will benefit from schedule 4 of this bill. We are boosting the low income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO. This is a game changer for low-income workers in Bullwinkel, and it's good to hear that the opposition support this component. We are increasing the maximum payment from $500 to $810 and lifting the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. We have over 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 administration workers and over 50,000 aged carers and disability carers in the nation who will benefit. These are the people that I worked alongside in the health system. These are the people who keep our local shops running in Forrestfield. For a part-time worker in Mundaring earning $40,000 a year, this boost, combined with other reforms, could mean an extra $15,000 in their account by the time they retire. We all know the value of compounding income and savings. That's the difference between a retirement spent counting every cent and a retirement spent with dignity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes to LISTO have had strong support in my community and in families across all of Tangney. In my conversation with families, women and young people, it is clear these changes are both fair and practical. There are changes designed to ensure people on a lower income are not placed at a disadvantage. These changes provide a fairer tax concession on their super contribution while also making a real difference in efforts to narrow the superannuation gender gap. These changes make sure everyone has concessions to save for retirement through super while also improving the equity and sustainability of the superannuation system by reducing concessions for small numbers of individuals with very large super balances. I support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These reforms, of course, are part of a much broader agenda. Since coming to office, Labor has strengthened the superannuation system in multiple ways. We are paying superannuation on paid parental leave for the first time, we've introduced payday super to ensure contributions are paid on time and we have increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, alongside legislating the objective of superannuation itself. Labor built Australia's superannuation system, and we remain committed to ensuring it continues to deliver for future generations—stronger, fairer and more sustainable than before. This bill delivers more help to low-income workers, makes concessions fairer and protects the long-term sustainability of the system on which millions of Australians rely. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“They make the system more sustainable by better targeting concessions for the biggest balances to help fund more super for people with the smallest balances.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jim Chalmers, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Jim Chalmers supports the bill because it would increase superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. assistance for low-income workers while reducing tax concessions on balances above $3 million, making the system fairer and more sustainable.
“They make the system more sustainable by better targeting concessions for the biggest balances to help fund more super for people with the smallest balances.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jim Chalmers supports the bill because it increases superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. tax concessions for low-income workers while reducing concessions for very large balances, making the system fairer and more sustainable.
“Our superannuation system is the envy of the world. It began with workers and unions organising to support a better standard of living in retirement. It became a universal system in 1992, under the Keating government, with work done under the Hawke government as well by Treasurer Keating. The passage of this bill through the parliament will be a really important next step in the evolution of our superannuation system—a step towards a stronger system, a step towards a fairer system and a step towards a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future. That's why I commend this bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Libby Coker on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Coker supports the bill because it will boost superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. support for low-income workers while reducing tax concessions for people with very large balances, making the system fairer and more sustainable.
“I rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. This bill is about something absolutely fundamental: making Australia's superannuation system stronger, fairer and more sustainable in the longer term. Superannuation represents the best of what it means to be Australian. It represents dignity, it represents security and it represents confidence that, after a lifetime of work—often physically demanding or sometimes underrecognised—Australians can retire with stability and independence.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Coker supports the bill, arguing it will strengthen retirement savings for low-income workers while making superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. tax concessions fairer, better targeted and more sustainable.
“This bill will enable the strengthening of superannuation for those on low incomes. It ensures tax concessions are better targeted and it reinforces the legislative objective of super: to provide income for a secure retirement. Our superannuation system is a national achievement, and we should all be very proud of it. This legislation ensures it continues to deliver for millions of working Australians, today and into the future.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill restores that confidence. It does that in two clear ways. First, it better targets tax concessions for those with very large balances. Second, it strengthens support for low income workers so that super works for the people it was meant to serve. Super tax concessions are deliberate policy choice. They exist to encourage people to save for retirement. They exist so that ordinary working people can build for their retirement over time. But those concessions must be sustainable, they must be justified, and they must be targeted fairly. Right now, too large a share of earning concessions flows to those at the very top end of the system. This bill adjusts the concession tax treatment for super earnings on amounts above a very high limit.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As we know, at the time of the introduction of the LISTO many years ago, it was seen as a fairness fix. This legislation seeks to keep in line with that objective, continuing for it to be fair. The LISTO was frozen for 13 years and had fallen behind because of changes to the tax brackets. What these changes will do is make up for those gaps. When the tax bracket changed on 1 July 2020 from $37,000 to 45,000, the LISTO did not. That meant that people earning between those amounts did not get the super tax refund. Missing out on tax concessions adds up, as we know, over a working life. A woman in the bottom 20 per cent of wage earners could lose up to $60,000 from their superannuation balance by retirement. This is a significant reform, and boosting the LISTO will benefit 1.3 million Australians—of which around 60 per cent are women. That will help to narrow the gender pay gap in retirement. Workers could receive a potential benefit at retirement of around $15,000. For that alone, it is worth supporting this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
24 speakers · 27 contributions · 22 oppose · 1 mixed · 1 unclear
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) is a bill that deals with the trickiest tax that Labor have ever sought to bring into this place since Federation, and we as the coalition are deeply opposed to what they've been trying to do.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will always stand for a tax system grounded in principle, for retirement savings that are stable and predictable, for fiscal discipline that protects future generations rather than quietly taxing them. We forced this government to retreat once, and we will continue to hold them to account for the sake of retirees, for the sake of small businesses and especially for the sake of young Australians. Those opposite say they support our young Aussies, but the truth is that their future savings are at risk of being stolen by this big-spending, big-taxing Labor government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is why we will continue to oppose policies that undermine the integrity of Australians' retirement savings, like this legislation we are debating here today does. People's super should belong to the Australian people of this generation and the next generation. Superannuation doesn't belong to the government. It is not their pot of gold from which to extract when they find themselves in a tricky budget situation. If you find yourself in a tricky budget situation, find a way to rein in your wasteful spending; don't go after the retirement savings of hardworking Australians to try and bump up your own budget bottom line.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition believes in a superannuation system that's stable, predictable and principled so that Australians can make long-term investment decisions and that international investors can make those long-term investment decisions. We believe in a stronger Australia for each of those people, not a weaker Australia that's marred by increased spending, a higher cost of living and opportunistic tax grabs. I would ask this government to rein in government spending and address the problem at its source rather than steal from hardworking Australians and their retirement incomes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a bad bill. On behalf of the farmers and small-business owners in my electorate, I cannot, in good faith, support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There's a structural spending growth in our country that is outpacing sustainable economic growth. Indeed, with the economy stuck in first gear because of regulation, high inflation, high interest rates and the red tape that is crippling private business investment in our country, the reality is that the government is spending beyond its means and so it is reaching for new taxes to fill the gap. The Liberal Party and the National Party are committed, in coalition, to always be the parties of lower taxes. That means we're not supporting this blatant tax grab. Rather than confronting waste, prioritising programs and restoring fiscal discipline, Labor's simply on the hunt for new pools of your money to spend.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The fact remains that the matters of inflation and high interest rates have beaten this treasurer and this government. They don't know what to do. They don't know how to handle it or to address it because they don't know how to curtail their own spending. They are unable to manage our economy, so they are looking for everyday Australians and for Australian small businesses—particularly those small businesses that hold their assets in super—to actually pay more. What they have proposed here reinforces that broader pattern of higher spending first and then new taxes that Australians will pay for. That's not reform; that's fiscal mismanagement. As I said at the outset, we believe in lower taxes, lower inflation and lower interest rates, and we are totally focused on restoring the standard of living for Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Furthermore, beyond the headline rates and the threshold changes, this legislation introduces serious hidden structural risks that the government has tried to sweep under the rug. Take, for example, the removal of the effective death tax exemption. This creates immense uncertainty for families at precisely the moment that they are vulnerable. Surviving spouses who suddenly find themselves relying on superannuation balances to maintain some semblance of stability after the devastating loss of a partner could face immense additional tax complexity and reduced financial security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, have suffered catastrophic events and are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle. It is a vital lifeline. Any changes that increase volatility, reduce predictability or complicate access to those funds carries real, devastating human consequences.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I know from a business perspective, having been a business owner before coming to this place, that only too often, when the Australian Labor Party run out of their money, they'll come looking for yours. Superannuation is one of those little buckets that is just too tempting to those on the other side for them to keep their hands off it. You were promised, with the creation of super—your wealth, your money—that it would stay with you and it would never be raided. What you are not hearing from those on the other side during this debate is that this bill is a revenue raiser, and its intention is to raise over $2 billion in the forward estimates. They are snipping at your superannuation and they are masking it as being fair. 'It's fair to take your money. It's fair to raid the superannuation system. It's just fair.' I tell you this is anything but fair. A good opposition is vital because, if they had had their way, it would have been much, much worse.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Is the Treasurer that out of touch with cost-of-living concerns and so desperate for money for a flailing budget that he persisted, until taken to task last year, with unrealised capital gains and refusing threshold indexation? Is he so out of touch he had to be taken to task by his leadership team, the Prime Minister or both? Somehow, during a cost-of-living crisis, the Treasurer thought it would be okay to tax farmers on paper gains only. Had that idea proceeded, farmers would have had to sell off parts of their farm to meet their unrealised capital gains tax liability each year. Farmers use self-managed super funds to prepare for the future, yet Labor—as they love to do—were planning to shift the goalposts to raid retirement nest eggs. That's one reason the coalition is vigilant about elements of this bill that might unfairly punish those who worked hard to prepare for their retirement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Australian people, the community—those who came out so hard, in their masses, and said, 'We do not support taxing unrealised gains'—and small businesses have got better things to do than fight a government on a tax they're trying to creep in. They are the engine room of the economy. They're the ones that keep the lights on here—the private sector, our small businesses—not the government. The coalition stood side by side with our small businesses, with our farmers, and said, 'We will not support it.' We had to take the fight up to the government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Superannuation plays an important role in that story, but it only works if Australians have confidence in the system—confidence that their retirement savings will not become a convenient target whenever government finds itself short of revenue. Superannuation is not government money; it's your money. It represents the wages that people earn through decades of work and set aside for their own retirement. The coalition respects that and always will, and we believe governments should control their spending before reaching further into Australian people's savings that they have worked decades to build. For those reasons, the coalition will oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a government which, as I said at the start, has been found out and it is very much waving the white flag of retreat under pressure when it comes to the unrealised capital gains issue and the indexation issue. This was not a proposal that was in any way, shape or form about fairness when it came to the unrealised capital gains. It was not. And certainly I would really like to hear what is being done by the government to help those investors in Shield and First Guardian, those investors who now face a very bleak, certainly not a dignified, quality of life in retirement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jane Hume on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Hume opposes the bill, arguing that it breaks Labor's promise not to change superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement., undermines trust in the retirement system and raises taxes by changing the rules after Australians have made long-term savings decisions. She welcomes the removal of proposed taxes on unrealised gains and the restoration of indexationRegular adjustment of an amount for inflation. but says the remaining legislation is still a tax grab.
“Australians make financial decisions based on the rules that governments put in place. This is exactly what this government is changing. It's changing the rules, moving the goalposts halfway through the game, and it's young people that pay the price. Superannuation has always relied on one crucial ingredient, and that is trust—trust that the system will be stable, trust that the rules will not be constantly rewritten, trust that governments will not raid Australians' retirement savings to fix their own budget problems. That's what they're doing. Labor has broken that trust, and the truth is that this is a Labor government that cannot be trusted.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Hume opposes the bill, describing it as a new tax on superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. that would threaten retirement savings and create harmful consequences for surviving spouses and low-income Australians.
“This is a terrible piece of legislation. It's one that should never have seen the light of day. We will continue to stand against these ideological experiments and protect the retirement security of every single Australian.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Today, it's about superannuation balances above $3 million, but what's it going to be about tomorrow? What's the next threshold? What's the next asset in the attempt to claw more money from Australians? I can't support this bill, and we in the coalition will be holding the government to account on the bad policy, including this policy, that is failing to grow the economy and causing cost-of-living pressures to escalate. We will also be holding the government to account, when they do tax people, on whether the money is spent correctly and wisely, because it's the people's money, not the government's money.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. We know the government's finances are in a mess. We will soon hit $1 trillion in debt, with an interest bill of $50,000 a minute. It's hard for most Australians to even think in terms of a trillion dollars. Not so long ago, a billion dollars seemed to be an enormous amount of money. Since the Albanese government came to office four years ago, $100 billion in debt has been added, so this government is obviously scrambling to find a way to keep the boat afloat.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But, at its core, this debate is not about a balanced threshold or a revenue line in the budget. It's actually about whether Australians can rely on the long-term promises that are made by those who represent them. It is about whether we as a parliament choose to reward prudence or choose to punish it. It's about whether we strengthen self-funded retirement or slowly erode it. If we do believe in aspiration, if we believe in stability and if we believe that Australians who work hard and save diligently should not become an easy target for shifting fiscal pressures, then we cannot support this bill. For these reasons, I urge those around me in this place who are supposed to stand up for and represent their constituents to join us in rejecting it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Not simplification of the superannuation system, not improvement on current or future retirement outcomes for Australians, but quite the opposite—the intent was to fund higher government spending. Government spending has risen to around 26 per cent of GDP, well above long-run averages outside crisis periods. When spending grows faster than the economy, governments start looking for new tax bases, and, increasingly, Labor sees superannuation as one of them. That approach risks undermining confidence in the entire retirement system, because, once the principle is accepted that super balances can be taxed more heavily whenever fiscal pressure emerges, the stability of the whole system is weakened.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Tim Wilson on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Tim Wilson opposes the bill, arguing that it imposes a new tax on high superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. balances that Labor did not take to the election and is part of a broader effort to increase control over Australians' wealth.
“But Labor now can't be trusted. Labor continue to introduce taxes they didn't take to the election. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, proposes a new tax that was not taken to the last election and was not voted on by the Australian people. We know that Labor have other taxes that they're now floating amongst the community that were not taken to the last election, like their new tax on housing, which would increase the cost of new house constructions in Australia, and like their plan to fiddle with tax laws—they're going to start to apply taxes where Australians lose money. That's what's been happening with their proposals. They're getting modelled in the budget. Whenever something moves, they tax it. And, of course, they want to make sure they take more control over and more ownership of the wealth of Australians.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Wilson opposes the bill, arguing that it imposes an unmandated tax on private superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. savings and reflects Labor's broken tax promises and excessive spending.
“This is the part of the problem of why this law is so problematic, as well as all of the other tax measures that this Labor government is going to introduce. They start saying that they're not going to touch superannuation, like they did before the 2022 election. They then betrayed their trust with the Australian community and introduced a new tax after the 2022 election. It was called the family savings tax on unrealised capital gains. Then, after the 2025 election, the Prime Minister enjoyed ritual humiliation of the Treasurer and got him to abandon that tax. As a consequence, we now have a new bill before the parliament, which is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. This a new tax on the on Australian self-managed superannuation funds. What does this new tax do? It takes money from people's private savings and it then uses it towards consolidated revenue to expend in different ways.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Wilson opposes the bill, arguing that it imposes an unfair new tax on self-managed superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. funds that Australians did not vote for and would fund irresponsible government spending.
“The challenge for the Australian community is that the government now seeks to pass new legislation that introduces a tax that Australians didn't vote for. And let's be clear about this—I'm sure there will be objections that this isn't relevant from the other side of the chamber—the Australian people did not vote for the tax that Labor is now seeking to introduce. And coming up to the 2026-27 budget, the Labor Party will put forward further taxes that they lacked the courage and the honesty to put forward to the Australian people at the last election.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“It's a day ending in Y, and we've got another ALP special. We have a bill that has a very impressive-sounding name, but it's actually hiding what it really does. Building a stronger and fairer super system sounds good. It sounds reasonable. It sounds fair. It's very much Labor. The first point they have to do is name the bill well. That's about the only thing they generally get right: an impressive name. What this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, really is is a broken promise and higher taxes for the Australian people. When you break it down, that is what this bill is about: a broken promise and higher taxes for the Australian people. The reason this government needs higher taxes is to pay for their tax-and-spend agenda and to pay for the significant increases in government spending that are driving higher inflation and driving higher interest rates for the Australian people. That is the reality that is being lived in so many communities across Casey and across the country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I note that this amendment does not remove the suggested low-income superannuation tax offset which I, of course, support as anything that assists low-income workers in this cost-of-living crisis is welcome even though they will not see the benefits now when it is needed but in the years to come. Anyone who votes against this amendment will show by doing so that this bill is not really about fairness and is instead about revenue raising. Australians expect fairness. They expect stability in the rules that government their financial future. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's absolutely appropriate that the Labor Party has been forced—kicking and screaming—to withdraw those two elements from this bill; however, there is still another issue with respect to the legislation before us, and that is that it introduces serious structural risks. My colleague Senator Smith spoke to some of these structural risks, in his erudite contribution in this chamber. One of these is the removal of the effective death tax exemption, which creates uncertainties for families at precisely the moment that they are most vulnerable—when losing a loved one. Surviving spouses who rely on superannuation balances to maintain stability after the loss of a partner could face additional tax complexity and reduced security at exactly the time when they don't need that additional complexity and lack of security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle; it's a lifeline. Any change that increases volatility, reduces predictability or complicates access to those funds carries real human consequences.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This proposal should not be viewed in isolation. Today, it is superannuation balances above $3 million. Tomorrow, it may be another threshold, another definition or another asset class. Once the principle of taxing unrealised gains is entertained, it does not remain neatly contained. Is this Labor government opening a new chapter in a high-tax, high-spending approach to governing? All the evidence points to it from what I see. That is why the coalition will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What the government is proposing to do is tax over-$3 million thresholds at a rate of 30 per cent and over-$10 million thresholds at a rate of 40 per cent. That is an extraordinary rate of tax in this day and age. I came to work this morning and on the bridge down there where we all drive past in the cars when we come to work was a big sign from one of the protesters—'tax wealth, not workers'. That, to me, says that people who are wealthy don't work, and nothing could be further from the truth. People who accumulate wealth over their lifetimes, you will find, are extremely prudent and hard workers. They are people who have managed the system. They've invested wisely in our capitalist society that we all live under. They are the ones that should enjoy the rights and benefits that that provides, not somebody else. That is what this government is doing, as I've said—when they run out of money, they come after yours. A government who has bad fiscal policy, has bad monetary policy and is overseeing increasing inflation and increasing interest rates will take away any gain that the lower-income earners might get out of this 'fairer and stronger' system that the government is proposing. I put it to you that this whole idea that this is going to make it better for the average Australian is nonsense.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“So the Greens will support this bill unamended, but I want to be very clear. We are supporting this bill as a down payment on broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform, and we expect to see that broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform in Labor's upcoming budget. There is a massive Labor majority, a stonking majority, in the House of Representatives, and Labor plus the Greens is enough to deliver any legislation through the Senate. The opposition is an absolute rabble, and the numbers are there in both houses of this current parliament for broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform as long as the Labor Party is prepared to show courage and ambition. The only obstacle to genuinely deep, progressive and ambitious tax reform in the upcoming budget is Labor's political courage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While the Greens will be supporting this super change in the House, we're reserving our position in the Senate. I want to make an important distinction here, because this watered-down super tax was announced alongside a long-overdue increase in the low-income super tax offset. The Greens wholeheartedly support this part of the changes, two-thirds of which will flow to women's retirement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 4 support · 1 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Allegra Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Spender supports the bill because it fairly reduces excessive tax concessions for high-value superannuationMoney saved and invested for retirement. funds while preserving support for a dignified retirement. She welcomes the removal of taxes on unrealised gains and argues that revenue from future tax increases should fund income tax reductions, particularly for younger workers.
“So I do support the bill, but I think the government needs to link any tax increases to tax reductions. I forgive the government in this case because they did announce a tax cut for the lowest tax level before the election, so I'm letting them balance this one out. I'm giving credit for that. But I think any credits after that should be returned to the people as tax concessions on working because that's where they are really needed.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
The speaker supports the bill overall as a fair measure to address intergenerational inequity, but she proposes a substantive amendment to let under-60 people with very large super balances make a one-off withdrawal because the tax treatment has materially changed while their money remains locked up.
“I want to acknowledge the government's piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, which I support. I particularly want to acknowledge the changes to the legislation which I think have made it a very positive piece of legislation that is appropriately addressing intergenerational inequity at the same time as being, on balance, fair to existing super holders. However, in the current piece of legislation, there are people with high balances who are under 60, so they cannot remove their super from their current accounts. I think that is of concern.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and add my support to the bill. I do want to start, though, by raising my concern that senators have been prevented from having an inquiry into this bill. There's a worrying trend in this place whereby legislation that is perhaps seen as controversial is not referred to an inquiry. I don't understand why senators on my left feel the need to exempt bills like this from inquiry and not back themselves to make their case through the inquiry process—to actually grapple with the complexity and the varying views in the community and amongst experts—and ultimately land with a bill that they think is the right direction to be heading in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We have to do a whole lot more to urgently address intergenerational inequity. These superannuation changes go some small way towards that, so I support them, but they're very small steps on a very long road. There's a whole lot more that we need to do to reshape our economy for the next generation. In the meanwhile, I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bills didn't pass through the Senate in the last parliament and have come back now with some amendments, and I'm pleased that the government has now acted on all three of the concerns that I raised last time. The government has ensured that tax will only be applied to realised gains, has committed to indexing the new thresholds and has delayed the implementation date, although I note that this remains an area of some concern. With these changes, I'm satisfied that the bills now meet the intent in a targeted and fair way and, as such, I will be supporting them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'll be supporting this bill because it makes our super system fairer and helps reduce inequality. Superannuation is one of the best things Australia has ever done. It means ordinary workers can retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. But, like any system, it has to keep evolving to stay fair. This bill makes a simple and sensible change. It means that super balances above $3 million will have earnings taxed at 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent, and balances above $10 million will have earnings taxed at 40 per cent. I reckon that's fair. Most Australians will never come close to those balances, but, when someone has many millions sitting in a tax advantaged account, it's reasonable that the tax treatment reflects that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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.
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.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 95 to 35.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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.
Senate · 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.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 22.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 22.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered in published report
It looked at the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026; Bill No Comment
Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered in published report
It looked at the bill and did not raise any new concerns.
Report 2 of 2026; No Comment
Report 2 of 2026