Thanks Boomeronrations. Superannuation law is very complicated and I do not want to spend considerable time identifying the relevant sections. And, in any event, we won't know the final outcome of the Labor Party's policy until the legislation is presented to Parliament and passed by the Parliament (as the Parliament might make amendments to the Govt's legislation).
I might turn out to be wrong but I like to make the following observations. As you would expect (and I know from my past work in the public service on tax issues), the ATO as well as policy advisers and people who work on tax legislation will be working hard to prevent tax loopholes. Further, as you expect, these people will be seeking to ensure that the Labor Party's policy does not create a tax distortion (ie industry and retail funds in the pension phase getting a tax advantage over SMFSs in the pension phase) and they will be seeking to maximize the revenue impact of the change. I also note that the super system has changed materially since 2001 (most notably in 2006 and in 2017), and that I, on the advice of my accountant, have had to split my SMFS into an accumulation account and a pension account in 2017 because of the $1.6m cap and because the two accounts are taxed differently. Finally, I note that the Labor's Party's policy announcement refers to "superannuation funds" and does not single out SMSFs (ie, the announcement provides no details on how the measure is proposed to be implemented - I suspect they have not thought about this in any detail).
SMSFs in aggregate are heavily overweight in Australian shares which pay fully franked dividends and under weight in other investments (such as international shares and fixed interest) relative to industry and retail funds. This, at least in part, is why SMSFs in the pension phase are heavily affected by the proposed change relative to industry and retail funds. I think this is a reason why the newspaper journalists have focused on SMSFs, as well as because SMSFs people are the consumers of news story's like this which helps sells newspapers and financial advisers are focused on the SMSFs segment (as this is where they make big money). It also reflects that, in general, people with money in industry and retail funds are not as informed on, and readers of, super issues as people with SMSFs. And dare might I say it that the Labor Party's "messaging" to the media (and journalists rely heavily on the information fed to them for their articles (ie "cut and paste") that industry and retail funds are not adversely affected because of pooling so it "softens" the political impact of the proposed change.
