I think potential changes should be targeted at implementing policy measures that have been outstanding for some time. For example, the mooted amendments to the residency rules, first announced in the 2021–22 federal budget, would relax the residency requirements for SMSFs by extending the central control and management test safe harbour from two to five years, and remove the active member test.

These sensible reforms never saw the light of day, which is disappointing, because they are much needed to bring the SMSF residency rules into line with reality. Another area that should be targeted is the ad hoc and convoluted financial advice regime we have in this country. It is a debacle and needs to be addressed comprehensively as a matter of urgency. However, these are just two areas that should be targeted, but I doubt any meaningful areas will be targeted in 2025.

Naz Randeria, managing director, Reliance Auditing Services

It is unrealistic to plan for retirement when the governments keep changing the goalposts. Sadly, I have seen both sides of politics make superannuation their punching bag. They just keep eyeing this sector when there is a budget hole only because it is in a concessional tax environment. The perception is that if you have an SMSF, you are doing something wrong! How do you expect advisers and retirement planners to do their job if this is the mindset in the political landscape? If there is a potential for more changes, it will be in the following areas:

· APRA has already announced that banks withdraw their hybrid investments over the next eight years. This is potentially targeting the after-tax returns investors enjoy on the fully franked dividends received from these products and is a hidden tax grab. Investors will gravitate to private credit assets which offer increased risk-adjusted returns.

· Financial abuse: The Financial abuse: an insidious form of domestic violence report released by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services will see some very interesting legal complications. Albeit the overall intent is just and fair, bringing the protective commercial application into law will be no easy task.

The recommendation stems from evidence presented to the committee that under current law if an abuser is an eligible beneficiary, super funds must pay the death benefit to that person and no discretion exists for a fund to withhold payments in circumstances involving family and domestic violence and financial abuse. It stops short to explain, who, how or to whom will the benefits to go to.

· Objective of super: The legislation to enshrine an objective for superannuation passed through the Senate in 2024 to provide a clear and consistent framework for future superannuation policies. The Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 defines the objective of superannuation as "to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way”. This is an unknown beast, and I questioned the real intent of this bill.

I strongly believe the true purpose of this bill diverges significantly from its stated goals of providing clarity, protection, and genuine sustainability for the superannuation sector. This bill will be used as an equalisation tool. With estimated assets in SMSFs that have reached $1 trillion in less than 40 years, it is very clear to see that only the political parties do not understand the objectives of super. There is an agenda and I’m very concerned about what shape this abyss will take in the future of building our retirement savings.

David Busoli, principal, SMSF Alliance

Div 296 is asleep, but not dead. It still looms as a significant potential change. Financial advisers are keenly considering the quality of advice machinations and the introduction of a yet-to-be-properly-named-not-fully-qualified adviser and the relative limitations that this designation will entail. One is their inability to advise SMSFs, which will be an important differentiator.

Matthew Burgess, director, View Legal

Even if the Div 296 changes are fully withdrawn it is difficult to see how the agenda that saw the changes introduced will substantially change, regardless of the outcome of the federal election.

There would seem to be a materially high prospect that litigation around member benefits on death or incapacity will continue to escalate.

The level of adviser (and member) understanding of the importance of holistic and integrated estate planning may be the catalyst for change – and change that is positive. Similarly, an industry-wide embracing of the refusal by many advisers to assist unless an SMSF has a corporate trustee in place may be a target area for change.

Daniel Butler, director, DBA Lawyers

Simplifying what we have. There is layer upon layer of complexity and even the simplest question these days is any tax or super assignment needs to first determine where to start and work out what traps and trips lay ahead.

You cannot even rely on answers from government agencies due to the complexity of the law and need to do a lot of checking to make sure they take into account all factors rather than the specific question to see if they are right.

Australia’s tax system is considered one of the most complex in the world; we apparently rank behind the US which has more than 250 million people whereas we have around 25 million people. Our HR/IR system is also seen as one of the most complex in the world. Doing business in Australia with federal, eight state/territory and local governments creates endless complexity.

In super terms, there are so many thresholds, different index systems and qualification after qualification on most rules. Thus, there is the need for highly trained advisers and the younger generation is questioning whether they would like to work in these fields or take an easier job. We need a system that seeks to consider each new rule that is introduced from an efficiency viewpoint. It will be interesting to see if the objective of super that was recently introduced will play any meaningful role.

Aaron Dunn, CEO, Smarter SMSF

A lot will depend on which side of Parliament is ultimately successful – the Labor Party or the Coalition. If the ALP was successful from an election standpoint, it would be clear that it will still look to introduce or try and introduce the Div 296 tax measures. So whether they try and do that in the same form, we would need to wait and see.

From a Coalition standpoint, they had previously made it clear that they didn't intend to introduce such a measure. We would need to wait and see whether there would be any change in superannuation policy from the Coalition for any sort of additional tax.

Quite clearly, we have different positions from a superannuation policy point of view. The Labor Party have got through their objective of superannuation, so a lot of the focus around what Labor will be looking to introduce from a superannuation perspective would be focused on those elements within that objective, whereas the Coalition, again, quite clearly, have contemplated that housing for superannuation policy.

If they are reinstated into government, how they would formulate what that would look like? Is it beyond the first home saver super scheme that we have already that would then allow them to access in certain circumstances?

Shelley Banton, head of technical, ASF Audits

Any measure that increases revenue. By way of example, we recently had a final addendum to TR 2013/5, which changes how pensions stop and start. Now, underpaying a pension means that it fails for both tax and SIS purposes. It is then up to the member to commute and restart the pension, which may not occur until well into the following year of income … or the next. While no specific data is available, and we await guidance from the ATO, this ECPI saving will positively impact the government's budget hole.