Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025

Senator WALKER (South Australia) (09:44): I rise to speak on Senator Hume's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, and I must say, whenever somebody turns up in this place and claims they've found a new way to make the superannuation system fairer, my first question is always the same: fairer for who? Because that's what this debate comes down to: who benefits, who misses out and whose problems are we actually trying to solve?

If you're a couple with a few million dollars sitting in superannuation this bill could be pretty useful, and if you're looking for another way to optimise your retirement finances, move money around, maximise tax concessions and make a generally good situation even better then, yes, this proposal probably sounds pretty attractive. But, if you're a woman working part time while raising children, if you're an aged-care worker or a retail worker, if you're a single pensioner or if you're one of the many older women who are heading towards retirement and wondering whether you've got enough to get by, this bill doesn't do much for you.

That's why I struggle to see this as some sort of great gender equity reform. The biggest problem facing women in retirement isn't that they can't shuffle enough money between their spouse's super account and their own. The biggest problem is that women spend a lifetime earning less.

They take time out of the workforce to raise children. They're more likely to be carers. They're more likely to work part time.

They're more likely to work in lower paid industries. This all adds up and is why women still retire with significantly less super than men. It's not because they don't have enough accountants or tax-planning opportunities; it's because the system has historically failed to recognise the value of the work that they do.

So, when I hear this bill being described as 'helping women', I think we've got to be honest with Australians about what it actually does. There are only about 100,000 Australians with more than $2 million in their superannuation. Most people listening to this would hear that number and think, 'That couldn't be me,' and they would be right.

Most Aussies aren't worrying about how to manage a $2 million super balance. Most Australians are worrying about paying their mortgage, paying their rent, paying their groceries or whether they'll ever even own a home at all, and here we are discussing a proposal that would overwhelmingly benefit people who are already doing pretty well. Meanwhile, the people who are genuinely vulnerable in retirement aren't wealthy couples.

They're often single women, women who have been widowed, women who have experienced family violence or women who have spent years caring for children, parents, grandparents or loved ones and have paid a financial price for doing so. This bill doesn't help those women. What helps those women is fixing the reasons the gap exists in the first place, and that's exactly what this government has been doing.

For years, women were effectively punished for having children. You'd have a baby and step away from work for a period of time, your wages would stop and your super would stop too. That gap compounds over decades.

One year becomes two years; two years becomes 20 years, and suddenly you're approaching retirement and wondering where all the money went. That's why I'm incredibly proud that this government has introduced superannuation on paid parental leave. It's one of those reforms that sounds simple when you say it out loud.

In fact, when I explain it to people, the most common response is usually, 'But wasn't that already happening?' No, it wasn't. For years, women had been doing one of the most important jobs imaginable—raising the next generation of Australians—and we treated that as if it had no impact whatsoever on their retirement savings. That made no sense at all, so we fixed it.

From this year, parents receiving Commonwealth paid parental leave will also receive superannuation contributions. About 180,000 families will benefit every year. Ninety-five per cent of parental leave payments go to women.

That is a real reform aimed directly at reducing the gender super gap, not a tax-planning exercise, a loophole or an accounting arrangement—a real reform that improves retirement outcomes for ordinary Australians. This is just one example. This government is also strengthening the low-income super tax offset.

I know no Australian in history has ever walked into a pub and said, 'Can we spend this evening talking about the LISTO reform?' It's not really a catchy topic, but it's deeply important to many working Australians. It means more support for lower income workers who are trying to build retirement savings. Around 1.3 million Australians will benefit from those changes, and 750,000 of them will be women.

Again, these reforms are aimed at people who really need them, not people with a multimillion-dollar super balance. Then there's payday super. This is another one of those reforms that sound boring until you think about who they really benefit.

Women are overrepresented in casual work, part-time work and insecure work. They're more likely to miss out when employers don't pay super properly. Payday super means workers receive the super they've earned when they've earned it.

These are simple and long-overdue changes that will help close gaps that have existed for decades. The difference between this government's approach and Senator Hume's bill is actually pretty simple. This government is focused on helping people build retirement savings throughout their careers.

This bill, on the other hand, is about helping a small group of already wealthy people rearrange retirement savings that they already have to lower the taxes they owe. These are pretty different things in my book. While we're talking about women's economic security, let's remember some of the other things that the Albanese Labor government has already done.

We've expanded paid parental leave to six months, we've delivered wage increases in female dominated industries, we've introduced gender pay gap reporting, we've invested in child care, we've expanded support for single parents, we've strengthened workplace relations and we've seen the national gender pay gap fall to record lows, because closing the gender pay gap isn't about one silver bullet; it's about recognising that women's economic circumstances throughout their careers can be vastly different from men's.

We on this side of the aisle recognise that caring has value, we understand that work traditionally done by women deserves to be valued properly, and we want to make sure women aren't financially punished for having children or taking on caring responsibilities. That's the lens through which I look at this bill, and, when I look at it, I don't see how this stacks up.

I don't see how allowing wealthy couples to move money between super accounts is the answer to women's retirement inequality. I don't see how it helps single women. I don't see how it helps low-income workers.

I don't see how it helps young Australians build their financial security in the first place. What we do see is another proposal that would create additional tax advantages for people who already have substantial wealth, and I think Australians are entitled to ask whether that should be at the top of our to-do list. 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. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading motion moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.