Despite the unlikelihood of securing enough Senate crossbench votes for the controversial tax change, the Treasurer remains firm on Division 296.
Speaking on Sky News recently, Jim Chalmers described the $3 million super tax as an effort to turn “very, very generous concessions for people with big super balances into slightly less generous concessions”.
“We remain committed to it,” the Treasurer said.
“The Senate has expressed a view on that on a couple of occasions, and we’ll keep working to implement it, because this is one of the ways that we fund the cost-of-living help or strengthening Medicare or the things that we want to see in our budget, in the most responsible way.
“We know that our political opponents are digging in for people who’ve got more than $3 million in super. They’re digging in for long lunches and bosses. We’re for cost-of-living help and strengthening Medicare, and we’ve got to pay for it somehow.”
Pushed on the concerns that stakeholders have raised and how realistic it is that the legislation passes the Senate, Chalmers insisted the government “did a heap of consultation, and this was the best way to go about it”.
“Secondly, there are other parts of the superannuation system where unrealised gains are calculated. And thirdly, when it comes to some of the issues raised by farmers and others, it’s already the law that people are supposed to maintain an element of liquidity to be able to meet their tax obligations,” he said.
“And so we know that people have got a view about it, we engage respectfully with the Senate, we would like to pass those tax changes so that we can pay for our efforts to strengthen Medicare and provide cost-of-living help because we think that’s the most responsible way to go about it.”
Responding to the Treasurer’s comments, SMSF Association CEO Peter Burgess said the claims relating to consultation with the industry were simply misleading.
“What the Treasurer described as ‘consultation’ was not genuine engagement but a procedural formality,” Burgess said.
“It started with a fixed proposal to tax unrealised gains and not index the cap, and there was no deviation from these positions – despite compelling evidence of its potential deleterious impact on the wider economy.
“The absence of significant adjustments or receptivity to alternative views indicates that the consultation was merely a process to endorse a pre-decided policy position instead of a genuine effort to consider other views.”
Indeed, the government was criticised when the draft legislation consultation was originally announced in October 2023 because it provided just two weeks for stakeholders to provide their views.
Chalmers’ assertion that the $3 million super tax would not be the only part of the superannuation system where unrealised gains were calculated also came under fire as conflating two distinct approaches.
“In some parts of the superannuation system deemed income rates are applied which differ fundamentally from taxing unrealised capital gains,” Burgess said.
“By drawing a parallel between these distinct approaches, the statement confuses the public about prevailing financial practices within the system and how capital gains are conventionally treated and taxed, thus undermining trust in the system’s fairness and transparency.”
Responding to the Treasurer’s final claim around SMSFs being required to maintain liquidity in their funds to meet their tax obligations, Burgess said this is also “ambiguous”.
“While it is standard for laws to require liquidity to meet existing tax liabilities, the new policy introduces a liquidity demand far beyond what anyone could anticipate or plan for,” he said.
“By imposing taxes on unrealised gains, the policy compels asset holders to ensure liquidity levels that might necessitate the premature sale of assets – a requirement out of step with traditional practices where taxes are only imposed upon the realisation of a capital gain.
“The abrupt and severe nature of these demands can disrupt financial planning across various sectors, placing undue strain on individuals and businesses unprepared for such drastic measures.”
Speaking with Super Review sister brand SMSF Adviser on Wednesday night, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor affirmed recent comments from Jane Hume that a Coalition government would repeal the tax should it pass before the election.
“We are implacably opposed to that policy. Taxing unrealised capital gains, having the thresholds unindexed, this is bad policy,” Taylor told SMSF Adviser.
“For Australians who have self-managed super funds to have to sell their assets to pay tax is just wrong. It’s completely unacceptable. We are not only opposed to it, we intend to repeal it.”
