Benefits skewed to wealthy couples
The rollover mechanism could give couples with substantial super balances another way to minimise tax, directing benefits toward those already comparatively well placed for retirement.
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Budget, tax & economy
Couples could choose to move retirement savings from the spouse with more to the spouse with less.
Jane Hume of the Liberal Party, who introduced the proposal, said women retire with 20–25% less in retirement savings than men. She said the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the body cited for workplace gender data, attributed one-third of the gender pay gap to caring and breaks from full-time work. Hume also said an existing option for contributing to a spouse’s account was used by only 1.1% of Australians in 2021–22 because it was complex, restricted and poorly understood.
Australia’s superannuationMoney saved for retirement. system already tied retirement savings to paid work, so time women spent outside the workforce caring for children and relatives helped produce balances around 20–25 per cent below men’s. An August 2025 Super Members Council report kept that gap in focus, and Senator Jane Hume responded in September by introducing a voluntary annual transfer option for couples to even up their savings, but critics said it would mainly help wealthier households and the Senate rejected it in June 2026.
Deborah O’Neill of the Australian Labor Party (Labor) argued the proposal would mainly help about 103,000 wealthy people and allow more tax planning. She said it would not help single people or older single women. She also warned it could be used to game rules governing access to retirement savings and eligibility for government support. Charlotte Walker, also from Labor, argued that women’s lower lifetime earnings and caring breaks were the deeper problems. She said the proposal would do little for part-time workers, low-paid workers and single women.
Senator Jane Hume introduced this bill. It was supported by Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Greens; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
293 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Couples could choose to move retirement savings from the spouse with more to the spouse with less.
Couples could use the option once every 12 months. Both spouses would need to consent and each have only one retirement-savings account.
Couples could transfer enough to make their balances equal, but not enough to push the receiving spouse above the $2 million cap.
People aged 65 or older could not receive a transfer. People already drawing retirement income would also be excluded.
People with retirement savings based on a promised benefit, rather than an account balance, could not use the option.
Couples making a transfer would not pay a new tax on it. The money would keep the same tax treatment it had before.
People with an approved application would generally have their money transferred within 30 business days. The receiving fund would have three business days to allocate it.
6.46C Applications for spousal superannuation redistribution Applications for spousal superannuation redistribution (1) A member of a regulated superannuation fund or an approved deposit fund (the transferring fund) may apply to the trustee of the transferring fund to roll over or transfer an amount equal to or less than their spousal redistribution limit at the time the application is made to any of the following (the receiving fund) for the benefit of their spouse: (a) a regulated superannuation fund of which their spouse is a member; (b) an approved deposit fund of which their spouse isSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
(2) 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. When applications may not be made (3) An application under subregulation (1) may not be made if: (a) the applicant’sSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
6.46D What is the spousal redistribution limit? (1) For the purposes of an application under subregulation 6.46C(1), the applicant’s spousal redistribution limit at the time the application is made is the following amount: (a) if the sum of WB(spouse) and the amount worked out using the formula in subregulation (2) is greater than the general transfer balance cap for the financial year in which the application is made—that general transfer balance cap minus WB(spouse); (b) otherwise—the amount worked out using the formula in subregulation (2). (2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), theSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
(3) 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 for the financial year in which the application is made; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) within the 12 months before the application is made, the applicant made an earlier application under subregulation (1) in respect of the applicant’s benefits in the transferring fund; (ii) the trustee of the transferring fund has given effect to the earlier applicationSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
(1) This Division applies to the following: (a) a regulated superannuation fund; (b) an approved deposit fund. (2) 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: (i) that is subject to a payment split; or (ii) on which a payment flag (within the meaning of Part VIIIB or VIIIC of the Family Law Act 1975) is operatSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
307‑500 Meaning of spousal superannuation redistribution payment (1) A payment made in accordance with regulation 6.46G of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 is a spousal superannuation redistribution payment. (2) For the purposes of applying this Act: (a) an amount you receive that is a *spousal superannuation redistribution payment is to be treated as a *roll‑over superannuation benefit; and (b) the payment is taken to comprise of each of the following: (i) the *tax free component; (ii) the *taxable component; (iii) the *element taxed in the fund of the taxableSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
6.46G Roll over or transfer of benefit in accordance with application Transferring fund to roll over or transfer (1) 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. (2) However, the trustee must refuse to do so if: (a) the application does not comply with regulation 6.46C; or (b) the requested amount is greater than the applicant’s spousal redistribution limit at the time the application was madSuperannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) introduced text
Context
Australia’s superannuationMoney saved for retirement. system already tied retirement savings to paid work, so time women spent outside the workforce caring for children and relatives helped produce balances around 20–25 per cent below men’s. An August 2025 Super Members Council report kept that gap in focus, and Senator Jane Hume responded in September by introducing a voluntary annual transfer option for couples to even up their savings, but critics said it would mainly help wealthier households and the Senate rejected it in June 2026.
Report links women’s lower super to caring responsibilities
A Super Members Council report said time women spent outside paid work caring for children and other family members contributed to lower retirement savings.
Hansard ↗Senator Jane Hume introduces the bill
Senator Jane Hume introduced this private senator’s bill to let couples voluntarily even up their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances through annual rollovers.
Hansard ↗Debate questions who would benefit
Opponents argued that the proposal would do little for single women or lower-income households and would mainly benefit couples with substantial superannuationMoney saved for retirement. savings.
Hansard ↗Senate rejects the bill
The Senate negatived the second reading, so the proposed annual superannuationMoney saved for retirement. transfer mechanism did not proceed.
Parliamentary timeline ↗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 reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
Deborah O’Neill of the Australian Labor Party (Labor) argued the proposal would mainly help about 103,000 wealthy people and allow more tax planning. She said it would not help single people or older single women. She also warned it could be used to game rules governing access to retirement savings and eligibility for government support. Charlotte Walker, also from Labor, argued that women’s lower lifetime earnings and caring breaks were the deeper problems. She said the proposal would do little for part-time workers, low-paid workers and single women.
Hume said the proposal was voluntary, worked for either spouse and recognised unpaid care within families. Malcolm Roberts of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, a party supporting the bill, said equalising spouses’ balances was sensible financial management.
Benefits skewed to wealthy couples
The rollover mechanism could give couples with substantial super balances another way to minimise tax, directing benefits toward those already comparatively well placed for retirement.
Does not address underlying inequality
Moving savings between spouses would not fix the lower pay, unpaid care and reduced workforce participation that cause women to accumulate less super in the first place.
Misses women most at risk
Because the scheme depends on having a spouse with more super to transfer, it would not help single older women facing the greatest risk of retirement poverty.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 27 to 34. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Hume urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that its voluntary mechanism for couples to equalise their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances would recognise unpaid caregiving and reduce the gender retirement gap.
Read in Hansard ↗O'Neill opposes the bill, arguing that it would mainly help wealthy couples reduce their tax burden, do little for disadvantaged women and create opportunities to game superannuationMoney saved for retirement. and social security rules.
Read in Hansard ↗Roberts says One Nation will support the bill because allowing spouses to transfer superannuationMoney saved for retirement. between their accounts is fair, helps families and enables sensible financial management, although he criticises the bill's gender-focused title as misleading.
Read in Hansard ↗Ruston supports the bill as a practical way for couples to voluntarily share superannuationMoney saved for retirement. during their working lives, helping address the retirement savings gap caused by women earning less and taking on more unpaid care.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 oppose
“Paying super on paid parental leave is going to provide a boost to the retirement savings for those receiving Commonwealth parental leave pay, and it will particularly—significantly—help low-paid and vulnerable workers. So if you're not one of the 103,000, if you're a low-paid or vulnerable worker, if you're an authentic, decent Aussie who believes in fairness, this bill is not your kind of bill. This bill has got 'Liberal-National party' written all over it. It's only about the few people in the country that they want to make more wealthy at your expense.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When I think about fairness, I don't think about who has the sharpest accountants; I think about women working part time to raise kids, I think about aged-care workers, I think about retail workers, I think about the single mums and I think about the women approaching retirement who've spent decades caring for others every day. Those are the Australians that deserve our attention and deserve a stronger retirement system, and those are the Australians that this government is focused on supporting. For those reasons, I won't be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“A bill that empowers the generationally wealthy cannot seriously be discussed as one that reduces gendered economic inequality. It would do nothing to benefit the older single women who are at the highest risk of poverty in retirement. That is why the government does not support this bill—because it is more about giving the wealthy a leg-up than it is about striking gender inequity at its roots and because we know that a man is never, ever a financial plan.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
12 speakers · 16 contributions · 12 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
Hume urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that its voluntary mechanism for couples to equalise their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances would recognise unpaid caregiving and reduce the gender retirement gap.
“I urge this Parliament to support this Bill for a fairer, more dignified retirement for every Australian.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Hume urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that its voluntary balance-splitting mechanism would help couples address the gender superannuationMoney saved for retirement. gap and recognise the unpaid caring work and career sacrifices that often reduce women's retirement savings.
“This bill, the tackling the gender super gap bill, is an opportunity for our parliament to come together to genuinely improve the retirement outcomes for all Australians and help tackle the gender super gap—that intractable problem. Let's not accept a system that punishes women for caring for children. Let's not allow inequality in retirement to be inevitable. We can change it, so why not change it now? I urge this parliament to support this bill for a fairer, more dignified retirement for every single Australian but particularly for Australian women. I commend this bill to the Senate.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Superannuation sharing seems like a very small measure that you would be able to take. It's a very small gesture to say that you're not going to be bloody minded and disagree with this legislation just because it's been put forward by the coalition. Recognise the fact that this legislation is good, because even your prime minister, your minister for women and your treasurer have all acknowledged that there is a problem. Here is a practical solution, and I encourage you to support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Matt O'Sullivan on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Matt O'Sullivan wholeheartedly supports the bill, arguing that its voluntary superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balance transfers would give couples more flexibility and help reduce women's retirement savings disadvantage caused by caring responsibilities and economic abuse.
“It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, and I commend Senator Hume for bringing forward this very important private senator's bill. It's something that I wholeheartedly support, and I encourage the Senate to do so. This bill works to ensure that the retirement outcomes for women and families are fairer and more flexible. The tackling the gender super gap bill 2025 is designed to address one of the most persistent and unfair challenges in the super system, the gender superannuation gap. In August 2025, a Super Members Council report said:”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
O'Sullivan's remarks do not address the bill's substance or state a position, but his recorded vote for the second reading indicates support for its passage.
“Mr Deputy President, I'd like to seek your clarification—maybe you can come back to the chamber or have the President do it—in relation to the use of the word 'lie'. My understanding is that there hasn't been a ruling in this chamber against the use of just that word. Of course, under longstanding provisions, one shouldn't be accusing an individual, a member, a senator or anyone of any office of being a liar. But simply referring to a lie is not against the standing orders.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“That is the culture of this government, and, frankly, we need to create a circuit breaker for it. It can't continue. Australians cannot continue to pay the price of this government and its inability to manage our economy. We need to draw a line in the sand and say Australians have a right to make choices about their own lives and their own money, and this is an example of that. If Australian couples wish to split their super amongst themselves, then they should be allowed to do it. They should be allowed to do it at a time of their own choosing, when it best suits their needs and when it best suits the needs of their family because—guess what? If their family were to break down, then it gets split anyway. So why can't they do it at the time of their own choosing? I'd like the government to be able to answer that question. I'd like them to explain to Australians why this is yet another decision that's been taken out of their hands, why this government won't allow families to make choices about their own lives, about superannuation, about child care and about aged care. This government wants to have control but has no idea what it's doing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm incredibly proud to stand in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Gap) Bill 2025 introduced by Senator Hume. It is an important piece of the superannuation plan. It is an important part of rectifying the structural failure of Labor's superannuation plan.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I fully support this bill, and I commend my colleague, Senator Hume, on bringing it to the floor of this chamber. The reason is this: it sends a message to the Australian people that families are best placed to make financial decisions that best suit their own households. This bill does this by creating a simple mechanism to allow couples to split their collective superannuation balances evenly during their relationship on an ongoing annual basis. It gives spouses the option—it gives them the choice—to split their collective superannuation balances evenly on and ongoing annual basis. To ensure equity between couples, the bill contains a spousal redistribution limit to ensure that the transferring spouse does not end up with less money in their fund than the receiving spouse after the rollover.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“After the care that women across our country put into raising children and having children, why shouldn't they be able to split superannuation? Couples might split the electricity bill; they might split the mortgage payments. You're able to split superannuation and, legislatively, you're required to aggregate superannuation at the time that a relationship or a marriage dissolves. Why can't you choose to do that when you're happily together? Why does it have to be only on the dissolution of a relationship that there is some equity that's put into the superannuation system? What this bill does is create a way for one partner to say to the other, 'I'm valuing what you're doing, staying at home, raising and caring for children, and we can split the super so that it's fair.' One partner can say to the other, 'I accept,' and it is usually the woman—or the mother—who stays at home to raise the children. The other partner says: 'That's great. I'm valuing what you're doing by staying home and not being in the workplace. I accept that you may not be getting paid for that work.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This policy will help close the gender super pay gap by giving the partner with the higher balance, typically men, the option to transfer some of their balance to their partner to even up the accounts. 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. It also allows them to maintain the integrity of the superannuation system because it includes several guardrails and limitations. This is not a reckless idea. This is a sensible idea that should be adopted.”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
Askew supports the bill because it gives couples a voluntary, tax-neutral way to equalise their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances and improve retirement security for women whose savings were reduced by caring responsibilities and part-time work.
“The bill that has been introduced by my colleague Senator Hume looks to solve the problem in an ingenious way. It doesn't raise taxes, it doesn't spend public money and it doesn't make the system unfair. It simply allows people to use the money in the system and get it to where it needs to go, closing the gender gap in superannuation. The bill does something simple and powerful. It allows spouses to even up their super balances by rolling over an amount from the higher-balance partner to the lower-balance partner during the relationship, deliberately and with clear guardrails. It recognises that families make shared choices and should be able to share retirement security. It creates a voluntary once-per-year opportunity for a spouse to transfer part of their accumulated super to their partner's fund, up to a limit that equalises balances but never breaches the transfer balance cap.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Askew supports the bill because it gives couples a voluntary, safeguarded way to equalise their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances and reduce the retirement savings gap caused by women's lower earnings and caring responsibilities.
“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. It simply shares retirement security, the way families already share, work and sacrifice. It is a practical response to a structural inequity, which is why the bill has my support.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sarah Henderson on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Henderson strongly supports the bill, arguing that allowing spouses to split their superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances annually would narrow the gender super gap and improve retirement security for women who take time away from work to raise children.
“This shocking budget is in stark contrast to the gender super gap bill that we're debating this morning, which is all about fairness and all about justice. It gives spouses the option to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them on an ongoing annual basis. It makes the superannuation system fairer for women. It gives women confidence in their retirements, in their futures and in their families. It gives women the confidence to say: 'Yes, I can properly take time off work to raise my children and stay at home. We don't have to, as a family, both be working full time just to pay the bills and make ends meet.' If this bill is passed, we will have a superannuation system that supports families.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Henderson supports the bill because allowing spouses to split their combined superannuationMoney saved for retirement. balances evenly would improve retirement outcomes for women, who generally have lower balances.
“When it comes to the superannuation savings of Australian women, again I want to say how important this bill is to continue the good work of the coalition in making and improving retirement outcomes, particularly for women, and making superannuation fairer and more flexible. Women need a much bigger hand of help than men because they have, on average, lower superannuation balances. The idea that spouses have the option to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them is a very fair and very exciting proposal for our country and for every Australian family. It sits in stark contrast to the shocking deal that was made in this place just yesterday, which will be pushed through the parliament, meaning anyone who's decided to invest in their own self-managed superannuation fund has now been sold up the river by the Albanese government.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“As I said at the time, I was momentarily distracted and did not hear exactly what Senator Henderson said. I asked her to withdraw, on the request of the minister. Senator Henderson withdrew, as she should have. I will move it on from there. I will, however, refer the matter to the President, who happens to be in the chamber at this time, and get a definitive ruling on the use of language. But my belief is that what just occurred is as the Senate should operate. Senator O'Neill, are you seeking the call?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The Greens want to restore super to its original purpose of providing a dignified retirement for all Australians. This bill won't do that. Tax minimisation for men does not equal economic opportunity for women. This is such a shameless attempt by the Liberals to present a tax minimisation strategy for wealthy couples as a way for women to get ahead. The super gap is a genuine issue for women. At its worst, for people aged 55 to 59, the retirement savings gap is a shocking 48 per cent. Just as people hit retirement, the gender super gap is at its worst.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor's tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill.”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 reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.