Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (after line 19), after section 296-25, insert:

296-26 Exemption — one-off amnesty

If your superannuation balance for the 2026-27 income year exceeds the *large superannuation balance threshold and you are in the accumulation phase, you may make a one-off withdrawal from the account up to the *large superannuation balance threshold.

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.

The great challenge of changing super laws is that the money is locked up. You can't touch it unless you're at least over 60 and retired. If you made decisions based on previous conditions in terms of a tax statement and then it is changed materially, I think it is fair to give people the chance to say: 'I wouldn't have made that decision. I'd like to now withdraw these funds.' It doesn't affect a lot of people, but I think, on principle, giving people that choice is important. I do think it's worth noting that the government has doubled the tax rate, and in some cases it has gone from 15 per cent to 40 per cent. That is a material change in the taxation arrangements of superannuation with these high balances. I think that it is appropriate in that case to offer options for removing this.

I know that the government has in previous conversations with the Assistant Treasurer noted that there may be constitutional issues in relation to pensions. My question to the government then would be: were there any other options considered for people who might be in their 30s, their 40s or their 50s who would like to take this money out of super because they no longer see the benefit of having it in that arrangement? Were other options that would have been appropriate considered in the legislation? I think it's not an unreasonable request that, if your money is locked up for perhaps 10 or 20 years and the rules for it substantially change, you have a chance to remove that money and deploy it as you wish elsewhere.

See this speech in context