Peter Burgess, CEO of the SMSF Association, told SMSF Adviser he wasn’t too surprised the bill did not make it to the floor of the lower house for debate again   as it had been scheduled for late in the afternoon of the final sitting day.

 “There was always the possibility that they would run out of time. There have been some amendments put forward to the bill, which the association has been a   part of, and even though the government has the numbers in the lower house, it would not have been a quick passage,” he said.

Burgess spent Tuesday and Wednesday in Canberra in discussions with members of the Senate crossbench and said feedback suggested that if the bill is   introduced in its current form to the Senate, the government does not have the necessary crossbench support for it to pass. We expect the government will need to work closely with crossbench senators to pass the bill through the Senate,” he said. “There is still time before the   Legislation is due to come into play – 30 June 2026 – but what is important at this stage is that we get it right, and there are significant issues with this bill.” Burgess said the association is still advocating for the removal of schedules 1-3 in the bill or amendments to be made to address the unintended consequences and unfair outcomes.

“The Teals will be more important in a minority government, and we know they are not supportive of this tax. I have been informed the government hasn’t had discussions with crossbench senators as yet, and based on our discussions, it doesn’t appear to have the numbers to pass the bill in its current form.

“It is possible the government may offer indexation to secure the required number of crossbench votes. But as we have stressed to the crossbench, while that amendment would be welcomed, it still doesn’t address the taxation of unrealized capital gains.”

Aaron Dunn, CEO of Smarter SMSF, said the fact there is continued dialogue would suggest there is enough support for the concerns that have been raised to be addressed. Dunn said it is a double-edged sword for the sector as the longer the legislation remains in Parliament, there is the potential that things could change. He said the difference between this piece of legislation and the NALI regulations, which took more than five years to finalise, is that the government was then prepared to listen to industry concerns about the unintended consequences of the NALI bill. Dunn said Paid Parental Leave was one of the preconditions the Greens insisted the government address if they were to give their support to the Division 296 tax, but the party has now added other conditions off the back of the Senate inquiry into the legislation, including lowering the threshold to $2 million.

“One element of the bill is changing the definition of total super balance from 30 June 2025. For some people, not even impacted by Div 296, that will impact contribution plans for next year (and so this year, too). So, it seems outrageous that they have to plan without that information.”