Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) | Hansard source

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.

Labor likes to talk about how they created the superannuation device. Of course, what it's really designed to do is to support unions and super fund managers. They never really designed it to support those most in need. Over the years, it's taken the coalition to make structural amendments to superannuation to make it more fair. In the nine years that the coalition was in government, we made superannuation fairer, more efficient and more transparent. We did simple elements like capping fees on low balances. We banned fees on rollovers and investment switches. The coalition made expensive insurance premiums opt-in rather than opt-out for young people.

This is an important one. I remember when super first started and super payments were paid to employees. We, the coalition, abolished the $450 rule. This was the deliberate design feature of super that Labor embedded in its establishment in 1992 so that low-income earners, particularly women, weren't able to accumulate super when they earned less than that amount. It was the coalition that allowed non-PAYG income to be used for contributions below the concessional limit to attract tax deduction so that the self-employed could take advantage of super in the same way that wage earners do. It was the coalition that introduced catch-up contributions so that anyone who has not used their full concessional contribution cap could roll up five years of unused concessions, helping women who have taken time out of the workforce. It was the coalition that introduced the bring-forward rule so that three future years worth of non-concessional contributions can be made in any one year. Finally, it was the coalition that introduced the downsizer contribution that allows couples selling their family home to put the proceeds into super— up to $300,000 per person or $600,000 per couple—without breaching any caps.

I've listened to some of the contributions from the Labor members and, frankly, I'm shocked and appalled at their lack of understanding of how the super system works. Those of us who have taken time out of work to have children truly understand the impact that has on long-term super accumulations. Senator O'Neill talked about the superannuation caps that she is receiving, or reaching, as a well-paid senator, but she seems to have forgotten the millions of Australian women, and Australians right across the country, who are not in such a fortunate position. It is those people who leave work to care for their children or take part-time work who are the most disadvantaged by the super system. This is what the coalition seeks to address.

This legislation seeks to allow partners to transfer balances between the two of them. This is not, as Senator O'Neill would like to describe it, made up for some richies. This is for well-paid miners. What about those LNG workers who have just received an up to $550,000 salary package thanks to the INPEX wage increases that have just gone through? They might like to transfer superannuation balances to their partners. It is extraordinary to me that Labor seems to be able to make every single debate some sort of class warfare. But, in this country, we have well-paid wages and salaries going to mining workers, into so many other households, who are then choosing to allow their wives or partners take time off to raise their children. All that this legislation seeks to do is to make the superannuation system fairer and to ensure that women are not disadvantaged by being primary carers in their family.

I've got a quote from the Prime Minister on 12 September 2024. He said:

No mother should be penalised for taking time away from work to do the most important job there is. That is the principle behind paid parental leave and that is the principle behind adding superannuation to it.

This will help narrow the gender gap in retirement savings. We know that, at the moment, that gender gap is around about 25 per cent. We also know that that has an impact on the rising rates of homelessness we've seen in older women. The sector that has seen the biggest growth in homelessness in this country over the most recent period, the last decade, is older women.

This sentiment is noble and fine, but it doesn't assist those women who've already had their children. This is a policy designed to assist younger women who have not yet had children or are now having children. What this legislation seeks to do is to rectify the situation for women who have already taken time out of work to be the primary carer for their children in their household. This is a good and fair and right thing to do. I don't understand why Labor would seek to penalise women who have already had children.

Senator Roberts made a fair point. This also, of course, doesn't just apply to women. This applies to men who've been the primary caregiver in their household. This allows superannuation balances to be more fairly shared in families. This should be a good thing. This is a very reasonable, Australian thing. Senator Gallagher on 2 July 2024 said:

One-third of our gender pay gap can be attributed to the time women spend caring for families and interruptions in full-time employment. As these lower earnings accumulate over their lifetime, they're exacerbating the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. Recent ATO data puts that gender super gap between 22 per cent and 32 per cent. We on this side of the chamber don't believe that women should be penalised with financial insecurity in retirement just because they take on these important caring roles.

Surely this is a signal from the Labor Party that this is legislation they would indeed support. This is, at the heart of it, addressing this inequity. Women or men who have already taken time out of the workforce to care for children or to care for ageing parents, who work part time or not at all, should be able to balance their super with their partner.

I'm perplexed to see Labor senators stand up and speak against this. I truly am. The idea that it would somehow become some sort of class warfare discussion, I think, is a real sadness and failure, particularly for every female Labor senator who comes into this place to speak against the legislation. What it says to me is that only some women are worthy of support and only some families are worthy of support. Those families who have massive super differences, either due to higher salaries for the primary income earner or due to the primary family carer choosing to take time off or work part time, are not worthy of support. Labor, of course, is consistent in its inconsistency, and this week's dirty deal with the Greens to pass toxic taxes and to introduce devastating changes to our small-business sector, to the trust sector and to others is another example of that.

I could provide quote after quote from Senator Gallagher. Here's a great one from the Treasurer. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said:

When it comes to those first months of your child's life, you can't put a price on being there.

And you shouldn't pay a price for being there.

But apparently that doesn't apply to the carer's super balance.

The Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, went on to say:

Our retirement income system is the envy of the world, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. It has its imperfections, and one of its imperfections is the gender gap when it comes to superannuation. To put it bluntly, parents—and especially mums—take much too big a hit when they take time off to have kids. The combination of the gender pay gap and the super gap means that women retire with about 25 per cent less super than men. Of course, we can't fix it overnight …

Here's an example, Labor, of being able to fix it this night, today. All you have to do is reach your hands across the aisle and vote for this very sensible, fair legislation that allows for Australian women and Australian caregivers to be treated fairly in their family. Family caregivers should not have to face superannuation insecurity, financial insecurity later in life, because we've failed to allow for a very fair and reasonable rebalancing of super balances, as this legislation applies.

It was Amanda Rishworth who, on 12 September 2024, said:

Women deserve to retire with the same financial security as men.

This is the very point that this legislation will address. It allows for better paid primary income earners to transfer a portion of their superannuation to the primary caregiver. No, to those Labor people who seek to again make this about class warfare—I can give you an example. If person A has $300,000 in their super fund and their partner has $150,000, the most that could be rolled over would be $75,000, because that would make the two funds even, bringing both accounts to $225,000 if the full amount were rolled over.

This is what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to provide equity and parity for families who share raising a family and who share adjusting their wages and their salary incomes, particularly for this important stage of life of raising children or maybe at some point caring for their older parents. There is nothing more reasonable than to see this happen, and, as a woman who took time out of my career to raise children, who then worked part time to raise my children and who took a massive income hit and have the superannuation balance to show for it—why on earth would we not say that raising children and caring for elderly parents are right and proper things to do for families to be able to choose to do? This legislation allows for that inequity of super balances to be sorted out.

I really hope that those senators in Labor who refuse the talking points from the leadership about class warfare, who think about what is fair not for women who are coming through the system who will now receive super on paid parental leave but for women who have gone before them—thousands of who, right now, across Australia, have financial insecurity in retirement because we did not make this change earlier—listen carefully to this debate. I really hope that they might be able to see through the ridiculous political warfare and make a change for Australian women, who deserve better on this.

Labor like to say that they invented superannuation, but it has taken a coalition government to make superannuation work for members instead of just unions and super funds. The 'tackling the gender super gap' bill is the next step in ensuring super is more flexible and fairer, particularly for women and particularly for primary carers, making sure your hard earned savings in super are working for you and your family not for Labor and Labor's mates.