News location:

Tuesday, September 22, 2026 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

‘Victory for common sense’: Labor backdown on super

Long-touted reforms to double the tax rate to 30 per cent on super accounts above $3 million will remain in place, but a second threshold will be created for balances above $10 million, which will be taxed at 40 per cent.

By Zac de Silva and Andrew Brown in Canberra

More than one million Australians are expected to be about $15,000 better off by the time they retire after Labor caved to pressure to overhaul controversial changes to tax on superannuation.

The federal government has announced a drastic redesign of its super tax policy, which was originally intended to double the tax rate on accounts containing more than $3 million to 30 per cent.

Under the new changes, the $3 million threshold will remain, while accounts with more than $10 million will be slugged a 40 per cent tax rate.

Both thresholds will now be tied to inflation, ensuring lower-income Australians aren’t captured by the tax changes over the years, as incomes rise.

About 80,000 people have super accounts holding $3 million or more, and currently pay the standard 15 per cent concessional rate.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the reforms would make the superannuation system “stronger, fairer and more sustainable.”

“We always try to take feedback seriously … we found another way to satisfy the same objectives,” he told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

The government will also increase the low-income superannuation tax offset, a payment given to low-earning workers, by $310 to $810, and eligibility for the super payment will be expanded to anyone earning above $45,000.

Changes to the tax offset would take effect from July 2027 to coincide with Labor’s next round of tax cuts, while the other changes would kick in from July 2026, if they pass parliament.

Peak body the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said the LISTO change had the potential to add about $15,000 to the retirement savings of low-paid workers.

“These changes will make a material difference to the retirement prospects of 1.3 million Australians,” chief executive Mary Delahunty said in a statement.

Labor’s original plan to overhaul tax on superannuation, now dumped, was roundly criticised by economists because the threshold was locked at $3 million and not indexed in line with inflation.

The federal opposition also raised concerns that “paper profits” or unrealised gains would be taxed.

The government has addressed both criticisms in its new plan by indexing the thresholds and promising more work to ensure unrealised gains are carved out.

But Dr Chalmers now needs to win over either the coalition or the Greens to get the overhaul through parliament.

The treasurer has discussed the super tax changes with the Greens, but on Monday said he was yet to meet with the opposition.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said her party would examine the reforms closely, but called for more detail about how they would work and reiterated the Greens’ demand for the threshold to be lowered to $2 million.

“At first blush, it does look as though the government has gone weak on taxing the wealthy,” she told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

“For every rich dude who doesn’t have to pay his fair tax on superannuation, someone at a school is not getting the resources they need.”

Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien said he would also look at the details before taking a position, but described the government’s backdown as a “victory for the coalition of common sense”.

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

2 Responses to ‘Victory for common sense’: Labor backdown on super

David says: 13 October 2025 at 4:53 pm

Cute but pointless. Treasurer Chalmers talks about helping low-income earners with their super but is completely missing the obvious. Having more super but retiring without owning your own home is pointless. An extra $15,000 isn’t going to last long when you’re renting. The point of super is to keep retirees self funded for as long as possible (i.e not becoming a welfare burden). Added to that, is the growing need for people entering residential care to fund the system with their assets, principally the home they own as this becomes included in your assets when you enter residential care. Keeping your home separate from your pension calculation then including it to help fund residential care for those who need residential care provides for this. If we’re going to subsidize anyone then our tax dollars should go towards ensuring as many people are home owners by the time they retire. The taxpayer stands to get it back at the end. Subsidising property investors over owner occupiers is either stupid/criminal or both. Just harms the economy in the long term as the percentage of taxpayers money comes back at the end from property investors is likely to be greatly reduced. So why isn’t the government stopping the tax benefits to property investors and providing them to owner occupiers trying to get into the market (capped to a sensible average house price etc etc)? You want to prop up the property market with taxpayer funds, then focus of getting as many people owner occupying as possible as this has great long-term benefits for everyone.

Reply
David says: 14 October 2025 at 8:11 am

Wow, papers today report people will get a $810 bonus from the super changes. By the time many retire that’s not even close to a months rent. Why are people reporting this rubbish as opposed to the real problems this government is getting us into? Ask yourself, why is the taxpayer subsidizing rent over own occupier home ownership. We get nothing back from subsidizing rent but subsidizing an owner occupier makes them well place to contribute all the way through they lives as opposed to needing to be a welfare recipient. Yes, some people may need rental assist but any rent money going into private pockets should be taxed at a very high rate.

Ask yourself why the government, given it’s strong position with the LNP in tatters, isn’t using this chance to make some real changes for average Australians. Ask yourself are they scared of a housing price correction if home ownership gets prioritized. If so that’s an admission that the price of houses is beyond the average Australian. Why aren’t people up in arms about this? Where are all the so called critics and political commentators calling this out or are they all personally compromised by their own property portfolios? Maybe all people publicly commenting on the anything to remotely do with housing should be forced to declare their own property interests. I’m lucky, I just have a mortgage on a house I live in and I’ll be able to pay it off by the time I retire.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

Related Posts

Health

Parton pushes for home palliative care funding

Canberra Liberals Leader Mark Parton will move a motion in the Legislative Assembly today calling for continued funding of non-clinical, home-based palliative care support after funding changes affecting Community Options.

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews