Wealthier couples
Labor and Greens senators argued the bill would mainly help high-wealth or high-income couples move money inside superannuation, while doing little for single women and women with low or moderate incomes.
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Budget, tax & economy
The bill would create a voluntary annual process for spouses to redistribute superannuation between their funds while they are still together, by letting the spouse with the higher balance roll overA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation. an amount to the other spouse.
Senator Jane Hume introduced the bill to respond to what she described as the gender super gap: women retiring with lower superannuation balances because they are more likely to take time out of paid work, work part time, and do unpaid caring work. The bill’s answer is not a new government payment. It would let couples voluntarily redistribute existing superannuation balances during the relationship, using rolloverA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation.-style mechanisms that already operate when superannuation is divided after a relationship breakdown.
The bill sits in a wider argument about how to close the gender gap in retirement savings. Supporters framed it as a voluntary, family-level way to recognise unpaid care before separation or divorce. Labor and Greens speakers accepted that the gender super gap is real, but argued the proposal would not fix the structural causes and could favour wealthy couples or tax planning.
Criticism focused on whether the bill would actually help women with the lowest retirement savings. Labor and Greens speakers said it would not address the causes of the gender super gap, would do little for single women and low-income women, and could create tax-planning advantages for wealthy couples.
Senator Jane Hume introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Liberal Party, LNP.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
279 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would create a voluntary annual process for spouses to redistribute superannuation between their funds while they are still together, by letting the spouse with the higher balance roll overA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation. an amount to the other spouse.
A transfer could only go up to the spousal redistribution limitThe maximum amount that could be transferred under the bill, based on evening up the spouses’ balances without pushing the receiving spouse above the general transfer balance cap.: broadly, the amount needed to even up the two balances, capped so the receiving spouse is not pushed above the general transfer balance capA cap used in superannuation law that limits how much can be moved into retirement-phase income streams. The bill uses it as a ceiling for the receiving spouse’s balance..
The proposed process would be limited to regulated superannuation funds and approved deposit funds, and would not apply to unfunded public sector schemes, defined benefit components, pensions, retirement-phase interests, or interests already subject to a family-law payment split or payment flag.
A valid application would require the transferring spouse to have the higher withdrawal benefit, each spouse to have only one regulated superannuation fundA superannuation fund regulated under Commonwealth superannuation law. The bill’s proposed process would apply to regulated superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. or approved deposit fundA fund that can receive certain rolled-over superannuation benefits. The bill includes approved deposit funds in the proposed process., and the receiving spouse to give written consent.
The receiving spouse generally could not already be at or above the general transfer balance capA cap used in superannuation law that limits how much can be moved into retirement-phase income streams. The bill uses it as a ceiling for the receiving spouse’s balance., be aged 65 or over, or be between preservation ageThe age at which a person may be able to access preserved superannuation if they satisfy a condition of release. and 65 while satisfying the retirement condition of release. The process also could not be used again within 12 months if an earlier application had been completed or was still being considered.
Trustees would have short processing duties: the transferring fund would usually have to roll overA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation. or transfer the approved amount within 30 business days, and the receiving fund would have to allocate the amount within 3 business days after receiving it.
For tax purposes, the transferred amount would be treated as a roll-over superannuation benefitA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation. rather than a new contribution, and would keep the same tax-free, taxable, taxed and untaxed proportions it had in the transferring spouse’s fund.
This Bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide spouses with the opportunity to evenly split their superannuation balances on an ongoing annual basis.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) explanatory memorandum
Roll overs can occur for up to an amount that would evenly split the super balances but they cannot occur so as to put the smaller balance in excess of the general transfer balance cap. The amount up to which roll overs can happen under this mechanism is called the spousal redistribution limit.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) explanatory memorandum
This Division applies to the following: (a) a regulated superannuation fund; (b) an approved deposit fund. However, this Division does not apply: (a) to an unfunded public sector superannuation scheme; or (b) in respect of a defined benefit component of a superannuation interest in a defined benefit fund; or (c) to benefits that are being paid as a pension; or (d) to an interest in the retirement phase; or (e) to an interest ... that is subject to a payment split ... or ... a payment flag.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced bill text
An application under subregulation (1) may be made if: (a) the applicant’s withdrawal benefit in the transferring fund is greater than the applicant’s spouse’s withdrawal benefit in the receiving fund; and (b) the only regulated superannuation fund or approved deposit fund of which the applicant is a member is the transferring fund; and (c) the only regulated superannuation fund or approved deposit fund of which the applicant’s spouse is a member is the receiving fund. ... An application ... must ... include the applicant’s spouse’s written consent to the application.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced bill text
An application under subregulation (1) may not be made if: (a) the applicant’s spouse’s withdrawal benefit in the receiving fund at the time the application is made is greater than or equal to the general transfer balance cap ... or ... within the 12 months before the application is made, the applicant made an earlier application ... or ... the applicant’s spouse is aged 65 years or more; or ... the applicant’s spouse is aged between the relevant preservation age and 65 years ... [and] satisfies the condition of release specified in item 101 of Schedule 1.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced bill text
Within 30 business days of receiving an application under subregulation 6.46C(1), the trustee of the transferring fund must roll over or transfer the requested amount for the benefit of the applicant’s spouse in accordance with the application. ... The receiving fund must allocate the amount transferred or rolled over to the applicant’s spouse’s account not later than 3 business days after receiving the rolled over or transferred amount.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced bill text
Fifth, the Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to establish that the amount received is to be treated as a roll over superannuation benefit and that the amount maintains the same taxed and untaxed proportions as it had in the applicant's fund. Since the amount split is treated as a roll over and not a new contribution, it does not attract new taxes.Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) explanatory memorandum
Context
The bill sits in a wider argument about how to close the gender gap in retirement savings. Supporters framed it as a voluntary, family-level way to recognise unpaid care before separation or divorce. Labor and Greens speakers accepted that the gender super gap is real, but argued the proposal would not fix the structural causes and could favour wealthy couples or tax planning.
Sponsor points to long-running super gap
Senator Hume said tax office data showed a 26 per cent average superannuation balance gap between men and women in 2014, and used that history to argue the problem had persisted for years.
Second reading speech ↗Existing spouse contribution option sees low use
Senator Hume said only 1.1 per cent of Australians used the existing mechanism for making contributions on behalf of a spouse in 2021-22, arguing that a balance-splitting rolloverA transfer of superannuation money from one fund or account to another, rather than a new contribution from outside superannuation. mechanism would be more direct.
Second reading speech ↗ASFA models parental-leave super reforms
The Australian Financial Review reported ASFA modelling that superannuation on parental leave and a baby bonus could help close the gender retirement savings gap by 2050.
Australian Financial Review ↗Budget funds super on paid parental leave
The Australian Financial Review reported that superannuation guarantee payments on government-funded paid parental leave would start in July 2025, adding an estimated $4,250 to the retirement balance of a mother earning the median wage and costing $1.1 billion over four years.
Australian Financial Review ↗Minister reports remaining gender super gap
Senator Hume told the Senate that Minister for Women Katy Gallagher had reported women still had 21.3 per cent less superannuation than men.
Second reading speech ↗Women lobby Coalition on catch-up contributions
The Australian Financial Review reported that women had urged Opposition Leader Sussan Ley to do more on the gender super gap, including catch-up contribution changes for parents and small business owners.
Australian Financial Review ↗Jane Hume introduces spouse balance-splitting bill
Senator Jane Hume introduced the private senator’s bill in the Senate and moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated..
Parliament of Australia ↗Labor and Greens oppose the approach
During second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated. debate, Labor and Greens senators said the bill would not solve the structural causes of the gender super gap and could benefit high-wealth couples or tax minimisation.
Senate Hansard ↗Coalition senators press for support
The Senate debate resumed, with Coalition senators arguing the bill was a practical, voluntary way to recognise unpaid care and give families more choice over their own superannuation balances.
Senate Hansard ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
Criticism focused on whether the bill would actually help women with the lowest retirement savings. Labor and Greens speakers said it would not address the causes of the gender super gap, would do little for single women and low-income women, and could create tax-planning advantages for wealthy couples.
Supporters responded that the proposal was voluntary, required the receiving spouse’s consent, used money already in superannuation, and included caps and eligibility limits. No scrutiny entry, committee report, amendment or division was collected for this bill.
Wealthier couples
Labor and Greens senators argued the bill would mainly help high-wealth or high-income couples move money inside superannuation, while doing little for single women and women with low or moderate incomes.
Structural causes
Critics said the bill did not address the underlying causes of lower women’s super balances, including lower pay, part-time work, unpaid care and time out of the workforce.
Tax planning
Labor and Greens senators warned the proposal could allow wealthy couples to optimise tax treatment or avoid transfer-balance-cap effects, instead of targeting retirement poverty.
Relationship dependence
Labor argued the bill still left some women relying on a spouse’s goodwill, while the Greens said it could complicate superannuation calculations if a couple later separated.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Jane Hume introduced the bill and argued that couples should be able to voluntarily even up their superannuation balances during a relationship, because unpaid care and time out of paid work often leave women with lower retirement savings.
Read in Hansard ↗Lisa Darmanin opposed the bill, saying it would not address the structural causes of the gender super gap and would mainly help wealthy couples optimise tax treatment rather than help single or disadvantaged women.
Read in Hansard ↗Anne Ruston supported the bill as a practical reform to recognise family decisions, unpaid care and women’s lower lifetime earnings, while arguing Labor should back a voluntary way to narrow the super gap.
Read in Hansard ↗Matthew Canavan strongly supported the bill as a simple way to help equalise wealth between men and women, and suggested Parliament should also consider joint superannuation accounts in the future.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill might nominally put a few more dollars in the pockets of a handful of women, but it would do nothing to change the factors that drive the gender inequity at the heart of the issue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
10 speakers · 12 contributions · 10 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jane Hume on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jane Hume introduced the bill and argued that couples should be able to voluntarily even up their superannuation balances during a relationship, because unpaid care and time out of paid work often leave women with lower retirement savings.
“This Bill creates a simple and voluntary mechanism for fairness, making it possible for couples to split their superannuation balances evenly.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jane Hume supported the bill as a voluntary balance-splitting measure, stressing that it was about splitting existing super balances rather than creating new contributions or forcing couples to act.
“This bill creates a simple, entirely voluntary mechanism for fairness that makes it possible for couples to split their balances evenly between them.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill seeks to take a different approach. It's structural, it's practical, and it's a measure that is before us that we can do something about today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is all about providing that flexibility and that choice for families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As Senator O'Sullivan rightly stated, the money in the super funds belongs to Australians who have earnt that money as a part of their income.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I also rise to speak in support of Senator Hume and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is really about giving individuals the opportunity to decide what works best for them and their families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill creates a simple and voluntary mechanism allowing couples to split their collective superannuation balances evenly during their relationship, on an ongoing annual basis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Wendy Askew on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Wendy Askew supported the bill, saying it would use existing superannuation balances, not new taxes or public spending, to help couples recognise unpaid work and improve retirement security for women.
“It does not raise taxes, it does not spend public money and it does not make the system unfair.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Wendy Askew again supported the bill, describing it as a voluntary way for couples to even up superannuation balances with safeguards, no new taxes and no public spending.
“Senator Hume's bill offers a sensible, voluntary fix. It allows couples, during their relationship, to even up super balances with strong safeguards, no new taxes and no public spending.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“It gives spouses the option to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them on an ongoing annual basis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill, however, is not the solution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe parliamentary stage where a bill’s broad purpose and principles are debated. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.