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

Darmanin argued the bill failed to address the root causes of the gender super gap, such as the pay gap and career interruptions, and instead benefited wealthy individuals through tax optimisation. Darmanin stated that the government was already implementing measures like super on paid parental leave and expanding the low-income superannuation tax offset to support women. Darmanin contended that allowing high-balance transfers reinforced reliance on partners rather than promoting economic independence for women, particularly single older women at risk of poverty.

Pocock criticised the bill as a tax minimisation strategy for wealthy couples that did nothing for single women, single parents, or low-income households. Pocock argued that the superannuation system should provide dignified retirement rather than acting as a tax haven, and noted that previous Liberal policies like carry-forward contributions had primarily benefited high-income men. Pocock suggested that genuine reform required addressing regressive tax settings and the high effective marginal tax rates faced by women returning to the workforce.

Collins supported the bill as a mechanism that empowered families to make financial decisions suited to their circumstances, particularly recognising the value of unpaid domestic work. Collins highlighted that the bill included safeguards to prevent unfair transfers and ensured no additional taxes were incurred through the rollover process. Collins argued that the measure addressed the persistent super gap for women who took time out of the workforce, complementing other efforts to improve retirement outcomes.

Canavan argued the bill treated families as unified teams, allowing spouses to share financial benefits and manage retirement plans together. Canavan noted that the gender super gap often resulted from one partner, typically the mother, leaving the workforce to care for children, leading to divergent super balances. Canavan suggested that the legislation was a simple, logical step towards equality and raised the broader issue of tax inequities between single-income and dual-income households with the same total earnings.

Askew highlighted the urgent risk of homelessness among older women in Tasmania, linking it directly to lower superannuation balances. Askew described the bill as a simple, voluntary solution that allowed couples to even out their savings without raising taxes or spending public money. Askew noted that while the gender pay gap in Tasmania had narrowed, the super gap persisted due to part-time work and career pauses, making this structural fix necessary.