JANE HUME: Our super system penalises mothers. Splitting is the only way to close the gender super gap

Australia’s superannuation system is supposed to deliver security and dignity in retirement, yet throughout all 34 years of compulsory super, women have been left behind.

While the gender pay gap has closed from 18.5 per cent in 2014 to 11.5 per cent in 2025, the gender retirement gap remains stubbornly wide.

In March 2025, Minister for Women Katy Gallagher reported that women still have 21.3 per cent less super than men. The dial has hardly shifted down from 26 per cent in 2014.

The gender super gap remains one of the most persistent policy challenges in Australia.

It’s a problem I want to fix, which is why I have introduced the Tackling the Gender Super Gap Bill into the Senate. It’s a bill that goes to the heart of fairness, equity and recognition of the sacrifices made within Australian families.

Equitable splitting of superannuation already happens in divorce proceedings when relationships fail, so why not make it part of the system when relationships succeed?

My Bill gives spouses the option to split their superannuation balances evenly, on an ongoing annual basis.

So for example, say Person A has $1 million in their superannuation fund and Person B has $400,000. Person A can roll over up to $300,000 to Person B, bringing both balances to $700,000.

It doesn’t have to be a once-off lump sum amount. A couple might choose to transfer smaller amounts over a number of years; it’s an annual opportunity. It’s entirely up to each individual couple with how they want to split it.

So it’s fair and it’s flexible, but, to be clear, it’s not a free-for-all.

The amount that can be rolled over is limited in two ways. You cannot transfer so much to your spouse that your fund ends up with a lower balance than theirs, and you cannot top up the balance of their fund to an amount that is more than the transfer balance cap (which is currently $2 million).

This policy is all about choice and allowing couples to manage their collective retirement savings to reflect their collective choices throughout their lives.

Because, let’s face it, the gender super gap is rarely the result of personal choice.

According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, one-third of the gender pay gap can be attributed to time spent caring for family and interruptions in full-time employment.

For the other two thirds, it’s driven by systemic inequalities in pay, career breaks due to caregiving responsibilities, and the prevalence of part-time work among women. Superannuation, being tied to income, inherently compounds these disadvantages over time.

But let’s be honest, those decisions, those sacrifices, they benefit both partners in a relationship.

They are not individual choices, they are family choices. So why should the financial security that comes at the end of life reflect only one person’s income, rather than the partnership that made that life possible?

At its core, allowing spouses to split super balances is about treating the household, not just the individual, as the unit of retirement planning. It recognises that a family’s retirement savings come from collective decisions that family makes to work, care, earn and sacrifice and save.

Let me be clear: this bill doesn’t force spouses to split their super; it is not about penalising men or benefiting women. It simply gives families the choice to share what they’ve built together.

The former Coalition Government took solid steps forward to improving women’s super balances and retirement outcomes through such measures as catch up contributions, downsizer contributions and abolishing the $450 threshold, but there is more that could be done.

The good news is, there appears to be a genuine appetite to do something about it.

As Anthony Albanese himself has acknowledged, “No mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is”.

Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Women, has said that Labor doesn’t “believe that women should be penalised with financial insecurity in retirement just because they take on these important caring roles”.

Well, Prime Minister, Minister Gallagher, here is a bill that will help rectify part of the motherhood penalty that exists in Australia.

The gender super gap is a structural systemic inequity that is baked into the superannuation system. However we as a Parliament should not accept that inequality in retirement to be inevitable.

I am giving the Government the option to change that inevitability right now. If they really want to help make super fairer for women and close the gender super gap, Labor will support my bill and make super splitting law.

Jane Hume is a Liberal senator for Victoria.