Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not agree to debate the bills in cognate.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given an objection has been raised by the shadow minister, we'll be proceeding with the original bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are sick of the laws around superannuation constantly changing, with the Labor government fiddling every step of the way and undermining the retirement security of millions of Australians. Labor change the rules, they fiddle with the standards, they add new taxes and they even put forward insane new taxes, including those that are going to apply an income tax on unsold assets. It's an assault on families, their long-term financial security and their retirement.

Too often, the benefit or the purpose of changing the rules is to benefit a select number of funds that the Labor Party, through the union cartel, control and therefore use at their whim to take cartel kickbacks and funnel money to themselves through marketing expenses, via the unions, to ensure that they can continue to manage the retirement savings of Australians. There's simply no basis on which any good minded Australian citizen can tolerate the continued corruption of the superannuation system under the Australian Labor Party. The Treasurer likes to carry on in question time and everywhere else about superannuation, as though they have some sort of wonderful legacy associated with it, but the practice is that this government, like Labor governments past, treat the Australian retirement savings system like it's their own plaything—a piggy bank designed to fund them, to finance their interests and, of course, to be corruptly used to the advantage of organisations like the CFMEU-Labor cartel.

There is no limit to the extent to which they want to be able to eat into the retirement savings of Australians, and the group they hate the most is Australians who take responsibility for their retirement security through self-managed superannuation funds. Labor hates self-managed superannuation funds because, when people control their own superannuation, they can slap the hand of the Labor Party as it tries to stick it into their retirement savings—because they know that, when Labor tries to get its hand into this SMSF cookie jar, they have a way to close the lid and stop the Labor Party from stealing their money.

So what's Labor's solution? They always come up with a new way of introducing a new tax that gives them an indirect pathway to apply a standard to SMSFs, but they don't apply it to industry funds because they stay compliant and they stay under their thumb. That's why we have to fight the agenda that Labor has to destroy the retirement security of millions of Australians who've taken agency over and ownership of their own future. That's why Labor wanted to introduce an unrealised capital gains tax, which would have applied an income tax to unsold assets held in super. They wanted to introduce an income tax on unsold assets to apply to SMSFs, but they weren't going to apply it to industry funds because they were compliant and stayed within the control of the Labor Party.

It was very amusing to watch Labor's plan for an unrealised capital gains tax play out in what has now become a periodic and regular episode in this parliament. The Prime Minister goes off and announces one thing. He turns to his Treasurer and says, 'Your job is now to introduce and deliver it,' and then he goes through a process of ritual humiliation of his Treasurer by then, eventually—as he can't make the case in the public square—changing the rules and the regulations around him. The ritual humiliation of the Treasurer by the Prime Minister has to be one of the sickest performances that I've ever seen in this parliament, but it's definitely one that's now a regular feature of this Labor government, where the Prime Minister makes sure that he sets his own Treasurer up for failure. Every time he encourages him to float a new tax, he ends up overriding his Treasurer after the Treasurer has failed to do the hard work to build out the case. But the Prime Minister gets to do it, so he makes the Treasurer look ridiculous in front of his own colleagues. But there is no clearer example of the ritual humiliation of the Treasurer by the Prime Minister than by forcing him to close down his unrealised capital gains tax, which would apply an income tax to unsold assets in superannuation.

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.

After the Prime Minister ritually humiliated the Treasurer on his unrealised capital gains tax proposal, they've come back with a different tax that they didn't take to the last election, which is to apply an additional 15 per cent tax on income above a threshold of $3 million. The Prime Minister has also humiliated the Treasurer by saying that that $3 million now needs to be indexed. Then, as a final form of humiliation, he has turned around and said, 'Let's have a 40 per cent tax on income above a threshold of $10 million.' We know full well that this was never the Treasurer's intent. He is consistently in a pattern of behaviour where he is overridden by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister likes to keep him under his thumb to give a warning sign to the rest of his frontbench and all the members in the back bench as well who dare challenge him. He knows full well he's got dirt files ready to bring out on them at any time.

This is a disturbing model of governance where you have a prime minister with so much control and timid and weak members of parliament afraid to stand up and challenge him. It is showing just how much the model of government we currently have in Australia allows things like public money to go to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.

Labor have a problem. They don't have enough revenue, and, as we trend towards $1 trillion of debt in the coming weeks, Labor have only one answer, which is how to go after more Australians' money. But let's not lose sight of why Labor is going after more Australians' money. They have $15 billion to $30 billion of taxpayers' money to give to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. The smart thing would be not to give that $15 billion to $30 billion to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the member to be relevant to the bill.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, Deputy Speaker. The smart thing would be for the Labor Party not to give $15 billion to $30 billion to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel, but because they have done so they are now introducing new taxes on the Australian people. They can't manage their money and they've given taxpayers' money over to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. That is explicitly relevant to this bill because we're talking about how Labor is raising the revenue that they are giving to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I'll ask the member not to go on outside the parameters of the bill. I ask you to be relevant to the bill. It is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill, so I ask that you be relevant and keep within the parameters.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, the bill is about a new tax that's being applied to Australians, and the reason that tax revenue is necessary is that the Labor government has been taking public money—the money they are raising from this legislation—and handing it to organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel. It is explicitly relevant to this bill, and that is—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance. There are assumptions and directions and motives being impugned onto a party of this parliament which are incorrect, unproven and completely inappropriate.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Goldstein, I ask him to be relevant to the bill. The bill is about Treasury laws, not about other areas that you're paddling into. Stick to the bill and everything will be fine. We'll keep it flowing, other people can speak and you can have your say as well.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will explain again, Deputy Speaker.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to resume his seat.

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.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. How public money is raised under Treasury bills related to superannuation—this bill is introducing a new tax. It absolutely is relevant not just how the revenue is raised but also how the money is expended. What we know under this Labor government is they have a long history of not spending public money in the correct way. What we know is that they use public money—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Goldstein will resume his seat.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance. Again, you're impugning motive onto a party of this parliament which is completely incorrect.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein has the call, and I'm listening carefully.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The imputation is not being made by me. It is being made by independent corruption watchdog Geoffrey Watson SC in an independent inquiry being run through the Queensland parliament.

But now we're going into matters that I broadly agree extend beyond the specific purpose of the bill. I am talking about how public money is raised and how public money is expended, including the basis in which this legislation is being put forward. Labor have a spending problem. They simply cannot contain how they are going to spend the amount of money they receive from the public. That is why they will continue on their trajectory of $1 trillion of debt in the coming weeks.

The denial of that reality by this government is why they are going back and taxing Australians more. They are deliberately and maliciously targeting self-managed superannuation funds, as they consistently have done before. None of that has changed. None of that is different to the longstanding practice of this government. But what is very clear is that Labor are increasingly finding it difficult. They are feeling the heat and the pressure coming from the opposition because people are talking about it. People are being forthright about not just how the money is raised but how it is being expended as well. I understand that it is uncomfortable for members opposite when they raise revenue and they don't want attention on how it is being spent, but I can assure you that it is deeply relevant to this legislation, and some of us will not be backing down.

What we are seeing under this legislation is a farce. Every step of the way the process of passing legislation related to this tax is a farce. They proposed an unrealised capital gains tax, and it was mocked and ridiculed by Paul Keating and by Bill Kelty. Even Sally McManus had a go. That's how out of touch our Treasurer truly is. He simply doesn't understand not just his portfolio, because he's a passenger in it, but the consequences of his actions.

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.

They have broken their promise once. They will repeat that a second time and a third time. We're now going to see a government that has no trust at the core of its economic agenda, and no tax will be off the table. When they change capital gains tax on one property, expect them to come after the family home next. When they seek to remove negative gearing selectively, expect it all to go. And why are they raising the revenue? Just like under this new tax introduced in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, they are doing it so they can spend that money on untoward activities. Make no mistake, part of it's because that money goes towards cartel-ish behaviour, which absolutely involves the CFMEU.

According to independent corruption watchdog Geoffrey Watson SC, somewhere between $15 billion to $30 billion has been handed from Labor governments to organised crime. It is not my opinion; it is what is being said. I hear this often from members on the other side of the chamber when we debate other pieces of legislation—and they aren't always about taxation and revenue—which is, 'What is it that people want to cut from the federal budget?' It's abundantly clear that we absolutely want to cut out public money that goes towards organised crime through the CFMEU-Labor cartel.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What else are you going to cut?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the member opposite—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goldstein.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goldstein, sorry.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll continue within the exclusive parameters of the bill of how money is raised and how money is spent, under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. There was an interjection during the question from the member opposite, because she asked a question in the context of it, which is that NDIS corruption is also how money that is being raised through this bill is spent. I don't want NDIS corruption. I don't want a tax that raises money and then is spent on corruption. I'm shocked that this is an issue for the members opposite, but I think it reveals how many times there have been interjections from the members opposite about why they find people holding a mirror up to the government about exactly what it is they're about.

Precedent consistently shows that once you talk about changes to the superannuation system—which is Australians' money. Money in superannuation is actually income that is deferred into the future. It is given into a preferential tax treatment, but it is Australians' money. They own it, not us, not the members opposite. They own it and they own it whether it's in a self-managed superannuation fund or an industry fund or a retail fund. The tax treatment that applies is when the government comes along and says, we're going to take a chunk of that money and we're going to use it for a public purpose. And then the question then becomes, once we're introducing a new tax, how that money is spent. That money is spent on lots of different things, from federal defence—and I think we all accept that that's part of the relevance of this debate—to the NDIS. That is part of this debate, and so is NDIS corruption. That is part of this debate. Building public infrastructure is part of this debate. And if they spend money on other activities, including through the unions, that is also part of this debate.

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.

We have a fundamental issue of trust under this legislation. We know that Labor has consistently broken its promise around tax at the 2022 election and the 2025 election, and we know in the lead-up to this budget they are now starting to put forward new ideas of new taxes that they can introduce and more trust that they can break. The clearest example of that is they say they're going to go after CGT today, but they're soon going to make sure that CGT is applied to Australia's private homes' principal places of residence. They say they're going to contain negative gearing over here, but we know full well that once they start doing that, they'll apply it to shares and every other type of asset class. The Labor Party has a long history of promising something in an election and then breaking their word once they've won. The scary thing is how many Labor Party members on the other side of this chamber are happy to go along with it. They have no concern about the consequences, and they have no concern about the impact it has on trust and integrity in public life. Even more than that, they use it as an excuse to justify spending that money in the most grossly hypocritical and damaging way, including making sure that money goes towards organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What else have you got?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of the interjections say, 'What else have you got?' The question for members opposition who want to interject by saying 'what else have you got'—what else have you got when you've got to the point where you're handing public money to organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel? I do concede there's virtually—if somebody has said to me 15 years ago that you're going to have a debate in the House of Representatives about why it's wrong to do that, I'd think they were mad. But that's the reality of where we are now under this government. It is a form of insanity that we are there. Even worse than that—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member should go back to speaking on the bill within the parameters, as I've asked.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm still talking about how we're expending public money, which is explicitly related to how we raise public money as well. But that is the situation we face. We are in bizarro world under this Labor government. We are in a bizarro world where we're watching the Prime Minister publicly ridiculing the Treasurer. We're in a bizarro world where we have had taxes introduced. They promised they wouldn't until after they got elected. They got away with it twice, but I can assure you that they aren't going to get away with it again. More importantly, we've ended up in a situation where we have public money being expended to the most extraordinary things, and the only response from Labor members opposite is to turn around and say, 'This is the most disgraceful, outrageous thing I've ever seen.'

Their response is, 'On relevance'—how is handing money to organised crime not relevant? If it isn't relevant in this chamber, where is it relevant? Where is public trust? Where is public integrity, if you are literally having independent corruption watchdogs calling this out? I can't figure it out. Perhaps that's why there's a decline in the institutional settings of this country. But I'm hoping we're going to end it, and we are going to end it, because we're going to end it by making sure there's an election of a coalition government so that we can make sure we don't have these sorts of laws that betray public trust and seek to abuse public money again. In addition to that, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) Opposition and community pressure forced the Government to abandon:

(a) the taxation of unrealised gains; and

(b) indexation of the $3 million threshold;

(2) the Government cannot be trusted with tax reform;

(3) the Government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem;

(4) this is the first tax that Australia did not vote for that the Government has tried to ram through;

(5) the Government's new tax introduces new risks, including removal of the death tax exemption, and impacts on surviving spouses and total and permanent disability benefit recipients;

(6) increases to the Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO) are welcome, but modest, but do not address immediate cost of living pressures; and

(7) this change is the beginning of the Government's high tax, high spending agenda to pour more debt petrol on the inflation fire".

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, can I draw your attention to one thing?

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I haven't given the call yet. We're right in the middle of an amendment.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, the Chief Opposition Whip made multiple interjections not from her seat but on the way out through the parliament. That is entirely unparliamentary, and—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fisher—point taken. I did not hear her and I didn't see it, because I was concentrating on what was being said. I did hear some interjections earlier from her seat, but I thank you for making that point.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Goldstein has moved an amendment. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the accompanying Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. These bills are about stewardship, but, if you had just witnessed that and listened to the member for Goldstein, I don't think you would know what the bill is about. They are about protecting one of the most important economic and social reforms in Australia's modern history and ensuring it remains aligned with its purpose for decades to come. Superannuation is not a theoretical construct. It is deferred wages. It is money earned by working Australians and preserved so that, when working life ends, they are not left dependent on chance, inheritance or bare subsistence. It was built on a simple but transformative idea that retirement dignity should be universal.

Labor built this system, and Labor has continued to improve it. We introduced compulsory superannuation. We extended its reach across industries and employment types. We strengthened preservation. We resisted attempts to freeze or weaken it. In this term of government, we've increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. We've legislated the objective of superannuation, embedding in statute that the system exists to preserve savings and deliver income for a dignified retirement in an equitable and sustainable way. We've introduced payday super so workers receive their super at the same time as their wages rather than months later. We've ensured that super is paid on paid parental leave. We've strengthened the performance test to protect members from underperforming funds eroding their savings.

Each of these reforms reinforces the same principle: superannuation must be universal, enforceable and fair. I remember very clearly what happens when those principles are absent. During the Work Choices era, I worked in hospitality. I was working behind a bar engaged in what was described as being a subcontractor. In practice, I was an employee in all but name. I turned up for rostered shifts and I took direction, but legally I was classified as running my own business. I was earning less than $10 an hour, and, because I was treated as a subcontractor, I was responsible for paying my own superannuation out of that already meagre wage. There were no employer contributions automatically set aside, and if I did not make contributions myself nothing accumulated. But when you're earning less than $10 an hour, the priority is paying rent and buying groceries, not making retirement contributions.

For many young workers at the time, superannuation was not automatic, it was not secure and it was not guaranteed. It depended on contractual labels and whether you could afford to sacrifice the income in the present for something decades away. For many it simply did not materialise. That experience reinforces why super must be compulsory and it must also apply to all earnings. It must not depend on artificial classifications that shift responsibility onto workers—or come out of a fever dream from the member for Goldstein—and it must be paid as it is earned, which is precisely why payday super matters. The bills before the House today continue that work of strengthening and safeguarding the system.

Superannuation tax concessions now cost the budget more than $60 billion each year. On current projections, they will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. Concessions are not a flaw. They are part of the architecture of compulsory saving, but their scale and distribution must reflect the system's purpose. Currently, around 38 per cent of super earnings concessions go to the top 10 per cent of earners. Around 54 per cent go to the top 20 per cent. A substantial portion of concessional treatment flows to individuals with very large balances—balances far in excess of what is required for a comfortable retirement. This standard addresses that imbalance in a measured way.

From the 2026-27 income year, earnings on superannuation balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. Nothing changes for balances under that threshold. For more than 99.5 per cent of all Australians, the tax treatment of their super remains exactly the same. For the proportion of earnings attributable to balances between $3 million and $10 million, the effective headline rate will be up to 30 per cent. For the proportion attributable to balances above $10 million, the effective headline rate will be up to 40 per cent.

It is important to emphasise the structure. This is not a cliff. It does not reclassify an entire balance once the threshold is crossed. The additional tax applies only to the proportion of earnings corresponding to the proportion of the balances above the relevant threshold. Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds are indexed to CPI. That indexation ensures that reform maintains its real value over time and does not gradually expand beyond its intent through inflation alone.

The reform operates through the insertion of new division 296 into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, with the accompanying imposition bill imposing the relevant tax. Under division 296, the Commissioner of Taxation will calculate and assess each individual's division 296 tax liability annually. Superannuation funds will calculate division 296 fund earnings attributable to each in-scope member and report those amounts to the ATO.

The mechanics are detailed but principled. First, an individual's total superannuation balance, their TSB, is identified. The greater of the TSB, at the end of the income year or just before the start of the year, is used to prevent avoidance through temporary balance reductions. Second, the proportion of TSB above the $3 million threshold is calculated. That proportion is applied to the individual's total superannuation earnings for the year to determine taxable superannuation earnings for division 296 purposes. If the TSB exceeds $10 million, an additional calculation identifies the very large superannuation balance earnings component so that the higher rate applies only to the portion above that second threshold. The division 296 tax is imposed directly on the individual. Individuals may pay from outside super or elect to release funds from their superannuation.

Defined benefit increases are treated in a commensurate fashion. For defined benefit interests not in retirement phase, liabilities may be deferred until retirement—with interest. That recognises structural differences while preserving equity across the system. At the fund level, division 296 fund earnings are calculated by reference to the relevant taxable income or loss, adjusted for assessable contributions, net exempt current pension income, non-arms-length components and pooled superannuation trust components. The legislation contains specific rules addressing segregated current pension assets to ensure that capital gains supporting retirement-phase interests are appropriately included for division 296 purposes. It provides tailored rules for pooled superannuation trusts and retirement savings account providers, including life insurers, to ensure consistent treatment across different superannuation structures. The definition of 'total superannuation balance' has been refined so that all Australian superannuation interests are counted, with appropriate exclusions such as foreign superannuation funds.

Regulation-making powers allow for valuation methods that reflect the diversity of superannuation products and schemes. These are sensible exclusions. Child recipients of superannuation income streams are excluded from division 296 tax. Individuals who have received structured settlement contributions for personal injury are excluded, recognising the purpose of these large contributions.

This reform reflects more than two years of consultation and refinement. Practical changes announced in October 2025 have been incorporated. The design leverages existing reporting systems to minimise compliance burdens, while achieving the policy objective. The measure is expected to affect less than half of one per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in 2026-27. The higher rate, above $10 million, applies to an even smaller subset. Schedules 1 to 3 are estimated to increase receipts by approximately $2.15 billion over five years. In a system where concessions are projected to grow substantially over time, this is a modest but meaningful recalibration that contributes to long-term sustainability.

Superannuation exists to provide income for a dignified retirement. It does not exist to provide unlimited concessional treatment for very large balances functioning as tax-preferred wealth stores. Even after these changes, concessional treatment remains generous relative to many personal marginal tax rates.

But this legislation is not solely about recalibrating concessions at the top; it is also about strengthening support at the bottom. Schedule 4 enhances the low-income superannuation tax offset, the LISTO. The eligibility threshold has remained at $37,000 since 2020-21, despite changes in income tax brackets. As a result, workers earning between $37,000 and $45,000 have received no LISTO payment. From 1 July 2027, the threshold increases to $45,000. The maximum payment increases to $810 to reflect the 12 per cent superannuation guarantee.

Because of these changes, around 770,000 additional Australians become eligible for LISTO. Around 490,000 receive a higher payment. In total, around 1.3 million Australians benefit. Approximately 60 per cent of those are women. Workers who stand to benefit include over 100,000 sales assistants, over 50,000 administrative workers and over 50,000 carers for the aged and disabled. Over a working life, the boost could translate to around $15,000 in additional retirement savings.

There are 14 times as many people who will benefit from the LISTO boost as there are people with super balances above $3 million. Schedule 4 is estimated to decrease the underlying cash balance by $435 million over the forward estimates. Some revenue gained from better targeting concessions at the top is directed towards strengthening retirement outcomes for low-income workers.

Taken together, these measures reinforce the legislated objective of superannuation to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. It preserves concessional treatment for the overwhelming majority of Australians. It modestly recalibrates concessions at the extreme upper end. It strengthens support for low-income workers and it continues Labor's long history of building and improving superannuation so that it works for working people.

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.