Recent deliberations in the House of Representatives have solidified that when the legislation moves to the Senate, these lobbyists will need to focus on persuading a small number of pivotal cross-bench senators. This task becomes even more complicated given the Greens' partial endorsement of the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Bill.

During last week's discussion, the Greens reiterated their generally critical stance on self-managed superannuation funds. They contended that the legislation was insufficiently bold and inadequate in addressing core issues.

Max Chandler-Mather, a member of the Queensland Greens, emphasized that SMSFs are predominantly created to hold or transfer investment properties within a tax-advantaged superannuation structure.

On the contentious topic of taxing unrealised capital gains, Chandler-Mather highlighted that the legislation has shed light on fundamental issues related to SMSFs and borrowing. He referenced multiple independent reviews advocating for an end to borrowing by SMSFs, criticizing the decade-long neglect of this recommendation.

"The proposed taxation of unrealised capital gains in this legislation has surfaced critical concerns. Coupled with a significant rise in limited recourse borrowing by SMSFs since the Murray review, there is considerable risk not just to individual super funds, but also to the overall stability of the superannuation system," Chandler-Mather remarked.

"If the government desires this cautious legislation to pass, it must terminate super tax concessions for property investors," he added.

Conversely, independent perspectives, such as that of Allegra Spender, indicate a different sentiment. Spender initially leaned towards supporting the bill, yet opposed it due to what she described as flawed design, particularly the taxation of unrealised gains, the absence of a clawback mechanism, the lack of an indexed cap, and the uncertainty over whether final salary pensions would be subjected to similar conditions.