Connect and engage

If you had an existing SMSF and pay tax of 15%  on balances over $1,600,000 they do not index.    The indexation only relates to those not yet already with funds not in PENSION MADE.    So there is not really an indexing provision for funds.,

Very astute observations Peter.

Communist

If I stayed in an Industry Fund instead of establishing a SMSF and be guided by advice from an unethical Advice firm like Dixon Advisory I'd be $450K better off. So your comment is off the mark and not supported.

Many in our industry kept reading predictions of a hung parliament. Mostly from News Ltd and Sky after dark. Apparently this "wisdom" was accepted without any filtering of who was saying what

No one seemed to remember that Dutton was not acceptable to his colleagues in 2018, because they didn't think he could winm then. Hence ScoMo

As I predicted in a commentary two weeks before the election, Emperor Dutton was not wearing any clothes, and would melt once the blowtorch was applied to the belly. And so it was.

As noted in this article, a campaign should have been run against this tax regime during the five weeks of the election campaign. Never heard a thing!

Now the Greens have effectively guaranteed passage in the Senate

There are many reasons why Labor is pushing ahead with the taxation of unrealised gains via Division 296, but two stand out. First, this is clearly a test case for a supranational agenda—a soft launch of a precedent that global economic governance bodies have long toyed with. Australia, being a compliant jurisdiction with minimal political resistance on complex financial matters, is the perfect sandbox. This isn’t just about “the rich.” That’s the bait. Once the principle is normalised, thresholds can be lowered and the concept will begin to creep. First super, then private investments—eventually even the family home could be on the table. This is about conditioning the public to accept that unrealised paper wealth can be taxed before it’s converted to cash. It’s not tax reform, it’s narrative engineering.

Second, Division 296 is a direct attack on SMSFs—structures that allow Australians to invest in land, farms, commercial property, and private equity, far outside the grasp of the default fund model. SMSFs represent individual autonomy in a system increasingly hostile to it. Bureaucracies and collectivist institutions loathe the decentralisation and personal control that SMSFs enable. That’s why industry super and its lobbying arms will quietly celebrate this move. They view SMSFs not just as competition, but as a cultural threat to their cradle-to-grave model of wealth custody. Division 296 isn’t about fairness or sustainability—it’s about narrowing the pathways to financial independence and locking more Australians into a system designed to serve institutions, not individuals.

The problem with the argument that the "Obj of Super" is the cornerstone for this legislation does not hold. It wasn't law before the Div 296 bill was dropped. So, it was all lip service. The Obj of Super now being retrofitted to justify this poorly designed bill?
The Obj of Super was aimed at the LNP, seen as a way of preventing them expanding the access points or even looking at contribution levels (SG) etc. It wasn't aimed at Treasury to make good policy and construct well though through legislation. The more you see of the ALP, the more you realise they are dirty dealers but dress themselves up as the white knights.
If the ALP was anything like it sprukes itself to be (ie consultative and listening etc), this bill would have been corrected in the past 2 years and likely be law by now. They only want the cash drop as they are too scared to actually undergo proper tax reform all the while spending like there is no tomorrow. They will always win Greens support if they use the word "rich" in a taxing proposal.

Revolting. 

Cullen’s piece cuts to the heart of what’s at stake when behavioural tools are used not to inform, but to manipulate. It’s essential to recognise what the long-term vision of industry super truly is: not just to manage retirement savings, but to control them indefinitely. With their vast funds under management, industry super funds already have enormous market power—but what sets them apart is their alignment with ideological allies across the media, bureaucracy, and policymaking apparatus. Together, they can shape narratives, influence regulation, and wage sustained campaigns—both in public discourse and through legislative means—against independent advisers and retail fund managers who threaten their model.

This is not a new playbook. Industry super has spent the last two decades methodically closing the walls around its ecosystem. From the early days of “Compare the Pair” advertising, designed to discredit the retail sector, to backing the removal of trail commissions under the guise of reform, their strategy has always been about consolidating flow and locking in funds for life. And now, with retirement planning under the spotlight, they’ve identified the next frontier: turning guidance into a retention mechanism through digital defaults, nudges, and vertically integrated advice cloaked in consumer-friendly language.

Cullen is right to call out the hypocrisy. The same institutions that argued for the removal of commissions now propose “collective charging”—a dressed-up version of trail commissions, except this time they’re compulsory and invisible. The risk here isn’t just commercial imbalance—it’s the erosion of consumer autonomy under the guise of behavioural efficiency. If nudges are allowed to become shoves, and product sales masquerade as guidance, Australians will be shepherded not toward the best outcomes, but toward outcomes that serve the industry funds’ bottom line. This is not fiduciary duty—it’s empire building.

This sounds like financial audits, not advice audits. No biggy.

Labour as usual big spender on many wastage policies. Australian keep paying interest on the borrowed funds.

"The firm specialised in providing tailored investment portfolio solutions to independent financial advisers, enabling them to efficiently implement and manage direct and unlisted investment portfolios."

Vertical integration 2.0 proceeds apace. Take equity in advice firms, then force the advisers to use your inhouse SMA.

Just so you are aware based on a simple compound model, a person who is 25 years old today on an income of $80,000 a year [note according the Australian Bureau of Statistics the mean wage in Australian is between $100,000 and $102,742 for 2025, meaning way more than 50% of all Australians earn more than $80,000] and taking up a 2.5% CPI wage increase each year and 8% annualised growth on their superannuation, that person will have more than $3m in super before they retire. So please, don't take the view this only applies to the "extremely wealthy".

nice!

No one now. But the amount isn't indexed and when my kids retire they will likely have $3m (which will barely be enough by then). 

I'm a relative of one of these 5800 people and my relative never spoke to anyone about this.  AMP has a hand in all this too. Where is their responsibility

Anyone who has an industry super fund with more than $3,000,000 in it please put your hand/s up…

Vertical Interation.
Conflicted Advice.
Fee for no service.
Where is ASIC ?
Where is the MSM ?

TAXING UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS AS PER LABOR POLICY.

Peter Brugess is an optimist, and good for him, as he should be in his comments concerning negotiations with the government and the Greens.

However, I doubt the government really does expect to raise anywhere near the estimated capital gains tax on super from unrealized capital gains !

Why, you ask ?

They know or should know, that people who followed the Law concerning super and contributed and have a balance exceeding $3m are not going to just lay down and get smashed with unrealized capital gains tax. They are just not that stupid.

The know that these people will say, enough is enough, let's just remove it from the super fund after starting a pension thereby getting the money out tax free, where possibly of course.

However, I believe this is precisely what the Labor Governement wants. Each way they "gotcha". So, it is back to the old days !!

Get it out of super and more than likely into a descretionary trust with corporate beneficiaries. Then it will be taxable anyway.

However, you will get the CGT 50% discount and negative gearing thereby making the difference in taxation negligible. At least in the accumulation stage. Smart minds will be all over this like a rash on a babies bottom !!

If you are a self funded retiree, you are totally screwed and you are back into the taxation system: returns, accountants, the full catastrophy.

There have been many senerios and modellings of which is better for wealth accumulation: inside super or outside super. These are usually done by "super" administrators or "pro-super" pundits, even actuaries and the conclusion is that super usually beats outside super in net investment return, but not by a massive amount.

There will no doubt be many more of these modellings by "promoters" of both persusasions. This wil be facinating to watch. and remember:

"I pay whatever tax I am required to pay under the law, not a penny more, not a penny less... if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."
Kerry Packer

This will now change super to some degree. Governments change Rules,Taxation Laws, to move, incentivise, the public into the area they desire at a particular time. The public respond, but then they respond to well and the government of a different persusion or time reverses those incentives. Just like what is happening right NOW!

Bad luck for the older citizens who followed the Law. You are screwed when you are least able to respond: " life's a bitch and then you die",as the saying goes.

This is a perfect example. However, taxing UNREALIZED capital gains is an entirely new ball game.

This biggest concern is whether taxing unrealized caiptals gains in super is a precuror to it being introduced elsewhere. Not a good omen !

When you have a big spending government, you will inevitably get a BIG taxing government to pay for all the "free" stuff. Obviously Labor does not believe it will dampen "aspirational" business entrepreneurship.

This is somewhat true. There are many 25 to 45 year olds who no longer see much benefit in "busting a gut" to get ahead when you can just get a government job at a very reasonable income( eg. $100,000 to $130,000 age 33 ) and just maximize the perks: WFH; Flex-Leave; OT; maturnity/paternity leave; free childcare etc,etc. I have many in this age bracket with this precise attitude. 

Let the others "bust-a-gut" and pay the tax. Let's just "USE" or "milk" the system tp maximize "my" benefit. Smart strategy !!

If this tax does become Law, the "targets" must conclude, "well it was good as long as it lasted and we accumulated much, now it is back to the old ways"; with a corporate tax rate for small business at 25% plus the 50% CGT exemption plus negative gearing plus the use of Trusts, there are plenty of tools for the switched on Tax Advisors and Accountants.

Deja vu all over again !! ???

Craig Offenhauser

we should just pay the tax when we buy investments based on our estimated gain.

taxing super over $3million isnt in itself the problem.
Force the industry funds to calculate acuual earnings, index the limit and tax it.

Then you wont get the complaints.