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

O'Neill argued that the bill primarily benefited approximately 103,000 high-wealth individuals by facilitating tax planning and avoidance, rather than assisting ordinary Australians. O'Neill contended that the proposal created moral hazards and did not address the needs of single older women or low-income workers who are most at risk of poverty in retirement. O'Neill highlighted government initiatives, such as paying superannuation on paid parental leave, as more effective measures for narrowing the gender super gap.

Roberts supported the bill, stating that it made sense for spouses to transfer superannuation to even out balances, particularly as female earnings increasingly outstrip male earnings in some households. Roberts argued that the legislation aligned with One Nation's focus on supporting families and reducing tax burdens, contrasting it with what he described as excessive taxation by the government. Roberts emphasised that the bill was well-worded and fair, allowing for sensible financial management within families.

Walker opposed the bill, arguing that it offered little benefit to women working part-time, aged-care workers, or single pensioners who face the greatest retirement insecurity. Walker stated that the primary issue for women was lower lifetime earnings and workforce interruptions, which the bill did not address, whereas it mainly assisted wealthy couples in optimising tax concessions. Walker pointed to government reforms, including superannuation on paid parental leave and the low-income super tax offset, as more direct solutions for improving retirement outcomes for vulnerable women.