Speaking at the Australian Financial Review Super and Wealth Summit this week, Jones underscored the disparity in current concessions, noting that the top 10 per cent of super accounts capture over 40 per cent of earnings concessions.
He pointed to recent Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data showing 42 self-managed super funds (SMSFs) with assets exceeding $100 million, asserting that taxpayer support for these mega accounts strains fairness in the super system.
“No one is decrying that success,” Jones stated, “but you’ll have a hard time convincing me that these accounts need their current level of taxpayer support.”
He emphasised the government’s intent to align super tax benefits with society’s expectations of equity.
Industry pushback and opposition criticism
However, the proposal has met with resistance from key industry figures.
Peter Burgess, CEO of the SMSF Association, argued that focusing on “mega funds” distorts public perception of the sector, which comprises over 600,000 SMSFs, most of which are far from reaching the ultra-high-balance threshold.
Burgess condemned the proposed changes as a “political witch hunt”, adding: “There are a number of ways the government could reduce the superannuation tax concessions for those with excessively large superannuation balances and the solution, which is currently before Parliament that taxes unrealised capital gains, is not the answer.”
Adding to the chorus of opposition, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor issued a sharp critique, cautioning that super policy should bolster retirement outcomes – not, as he suggested, plug government budget holes.
“Australians rightly view super as their money, because it is,” he said at the AFR summit, asserting that “the Coalition strongly believes that no future changes should come at the expense of a laser focus on delivering returns to members.”
The shadow treasurer also pointed to international concerns, noting that both the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank of Australia have raised warnings around super policy missteps.
With the superannuation system growing more complex and the super guarantee rising to 12 per cent, Taylor highlighted the need for rigorous governance and transparency to maintain public trust in super funds.
“Our message is clear: if super trustees support their members, respect those members’ agency over their money, and ensure the funds run in a way that avoids conflicts of interest, with a focus on financial returns not activism, we will always support you,” Taylor said.
“We will not tolerate anything less.”
A debate on super’s purpose and future
Beyond retirement savings, Taylor argued that super should fulfil broader housing needs.
He argued that bipartisan support for using super towards home ownership dates back to the early 1990s, urging today’s government to consider this original vision.
“In the 1993 election, both major parties promised to allow allocation of superannuation to home ownership,” Taylor said.
“This wasn’t a quiet promise, buried after an election. It was an integral part of the promise of compulsory superannuation.”
Moreover, Taylor argued that the Coalition’s super-for-housing policy aims to honour the original promise of superannuation, not undermine it.
“Under a Coalition government, Australian first home owners and women who separate later in life, will be able to draw down on their super for a home deposit – up to $50,000 or 40 per cent of their balance. The investor will have to return the deposit to the fund on the sale of the home, ensuring the preservation principle is still intact,” he said.
“This reflects a sensible trade-off between the undisputed importance of housing to quality of life in retirement, and the importance and purpose of super.”
