Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be in continuation on this very important private senator's bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025. This is a bill that will make life fundamentally fairer for women, and I want to again congratulate Senator Hume on bringing this forward.

I spoke on this bill the day after the budget was handed down. In stark contrast to the stand that we took, Australians were hit with the news of this horrific budget that was handed down by this government, a budget of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards and fewer homes for all Australians, and things have just got worse. The deception and the lies have just got worse, because now we have seen in this place a dirty, rotten deal between the Albanese Labor government and the Greens, which is selling out all Australians, including Australian women. This latest deal is to compromise those who have invested in self-managed super by preventing people from borrowing for the purposes of acquiring residential real estate. These are mum-and-dad investors. They're not the big foreign investors who've got the big tax concessions and can come into this country and get 10 or 15 per cent. These are mum-and dad-investors, and many of them are women—women who've planned for their future, who've done the hard yards and who often have far less in their superannuation balances because they've taken time out of work to care for children and raise a family. Now we see another dirty, rotten deal which compromises anyone who thought that super was safe.

I have to say that, watching social media videos last night, I saw ordinary Australians and the rage that is in our community, because this is a government which said: 'We are not going to touch negative gearing, we're not going to touch capital gains tax, we're not going to interfere with your super and we're going to give you continuity in the laws that apply to your investments and your savings,' and the government, in a dirty, rotten, stinking deal, has done just the opposite. Labor lied before the election, they betrayed Australians on budget night and they have now done a dangerous—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Henderson. Senator Watt, on a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson just used a word that we know is not used in the chamber, beginning with l, and I ask her to withdraw.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry; I was distracted, which I should never be up here. But, Senator Henderson, for the benefit of the chamber, I would ask you to withdraw.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I want to quote from my speech, when I spoke on this bill last time and when I said:

I cannot even believe that any Australian now has any confidence in anything that this—

l, dot, dot, dot—

government says.

I wasn't, in fact, pulled up when I made that comment. So let me just say the Australian people won't cop the deception. They won't cop the fact that women are being sold out by this government every single day. And we see it again in the dirty, rotten deal that was handed down last night.

The coalition will axe Labor's toxic taxes. Axing them means lower taxes: lower taxes on small business, lower taxes on housing, lower taxes on investment and lower taxes on Australians who work hard, save hard and want to get ahead. There is a better way—not betrayal, not deception, not the sleazy sneakiness that we've seen from this government. There is a better way for a fairer, freer and better Australia, and that includes our tax-back guarantee, which we've committed to—automatic tax cuts every year to address the bracket creep rort. For a typical worker on $70,000, that means $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2, then $750, going to $1,000 in year 4. We will cap migration to the number of homes Australia actually builds. We are determined to fight these toxic taxes every step of the way.

When it comes to the superannuation savings of Australian women, again I want to say how important this bill is to continue the good work of the coalition in making and improving retirement outcomes, particularly for women, and making superannuation fairer and more flexible. Women need a much bigger hand of help than men because they have, on average, lower superannuation balances. The idea that spouses have the option to split their collective superannuation balances evenly between them is a very fair and very exciting proposal for our country and for every Australian family. It sits in stark contrast to the shocking deal that was made in this place just yesterday, which will be pushed through the parliament, meaning anyone who's decided to invest in their own self-managed superannuation fund has now been sold up the river by the Albanese government.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I'd like to seek your clarification—maybe you can come back to the chamber or have the President do it—in relation to the use of the word 'lie'. My understanding is that there hasn't been a ruling in this chamber against the use of just that word. Of course, under longstanding provisions, one shouldn't be accusing an individual, a member, a senator or anyone of any office of being a liar. But simply referring to a lie is not against the standing orders.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said at the time, I was momentarily distracted and did not hear exactly what Senator Henderson said. I asked her to withdraw, on the request of the minister. Senator Henderson withdrew, as she should have. I will move it on from there. I will, however, refer the matter to the President, who happens to be in the chamber at this time, and get a definitive ruling on the use of language. But my belief is that what just occurred is as the Senate should operate. Senator O'Neill, are you seeking the call?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, thank you very much. This is the time of the week where we get to hear what the deep, dark thoughts of those opposite are, and they put them forward in these private senators' bills. It's probably a pretty good place for Australians who might be confused by all the fear and alarm that registers on the social media to actually get an idea about what the Liberal and National parties really think and who they're really standing up for.

In this case, all the rants that we've heard, the proposals, all the work that went into putting this together by Senator Hume would serve, possibly, at best, around 103,000 people. That's 103,000 very special people that really matter to the Liberal and National parties, but what about the rest of us? What about the tens of millions of Australians who will benefit from Labor's policies? These are decent, working Australians who certainly will not benefit from this ideologically driven, narrow and unuseful contribution to the public place that's been put forward by Senator Hume. It's, supposedly, supported by her colleague who just made a contribution before me and in the eight minutes that she had—I think she spent about six minutes in total speaking. All of it was that profoundly intense, negative, breathless, hate filled, divisive, disasterspeak that has so characterised the Liberal and National parties as they seek to echo the fear and alarm that are being driven by other parties in this place.

Let's get to the reality of what this proposal—this private senator's bill from Senator Hume, who is a significant finance leader and economic thinker in the Liberal Party—is, and let's look at what she wants to do. The proposal in this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill, would primarily support high-wealth couples. It's not a bad thing if you've been successful and you're a high-wealth individual. Good on you. Australia is full of migrant families like mine that came here to create a great life, to do what they could and to work hard in the jobs that they have. If they have entrepreneurial capacity, they can go out, build a business, employ other great Australians, build the dream and become wealthy. But I've never, in the communities that I've been part of, been with people who once they make money and become a high-wealth individual want to push down on other Australians.

The Australians that the Labor Party represent are the Australians that I think we are—people who don't mind receiving a fair day's wage, paying a fair day's wage and getting the benefits of all Australians' tax earnings, tax spend, that go into the things that matter to them. These are things like being able to get their kids into a great school, like being able to go to the doctors when they need to and like being able to show up at an urgent care clinic and get the health care they need when they need it for their family, instead of having to traipse up to Maitland Hospital and sit there for seven hours before their child can be seen. Australians want these things for their families, and they don't mind paying a fair amount of tax. They definitely don't like what's proposed in this bill by Senator Hume, because this bill, designed for 130,000 high-wealth individuals, is a structure to help them undertake greater tax planning and avoidance to reduce their tax burden.

Having made a whole lot of money, this is about making sure that they never have to share that. They're driving along the same road where I live at Erina. These high-wealth individuals are driving along the same road as the single mother who's going up to work at Coles. It's not okay for somebody who's working at Coles or in a mine in the Hunter or the Pilbara or for anybody who's doing a normal job and paying their fair tax. They're driving on the same roads that are invested in by the Australian people collectively. Australians absolutely still believe in fairness. This proposal from Senator Hume is not about fairness. It's an advantage-building bill for those who already have the most.

The current rules that govern contributions to super are very generous. Working aged Australians are able to contribute up to $30,000 in concessional contributions and $120,000 in non-concessional contributions to their superannuation, and they can do that each year. The TBC is actually currently at $2 million. Now, most Australians, not this special 103,000 that Senator Hume is trying to do a special deal for with this bill, don't go anywhere near those limits. People would be absolutely delighted to be able to put $30,000 into their super. That reflects a wage like everybody who's sitting here, Senator Hume, myself, all the senators here—we're going to hit that cap every year because our superannuation on our wages is now hitting that cap. But we don't struggle—we have decent wages—like people who are out there really doing it tough. As one of these people who isn't struggling, I do not believe that anything that Senator Hume is offering is advantageous to ordinary Australians. Remember, the Liberal Party have revealed who they are. They're here for 103,000 high wealth individuals.

This proposal from Senator Hume would not benefit single people, and it certainly wouldn't benefit single older women, who are the most disadvantaged and the most at risk of poverty in retirement. What Senator Hume is proposing, what the Liberal-National Party are proposing, in this super special bill that they put out to show their credentials is that they want to give couples the scope to roll over their existing superannuation savings from the high balance member of a couple to the low balance member to optimise the tax treatment. That's code for high wealth individuals pay less tax. Let's create a bill. This is the goal, taking up the time of the Senate. This is the big thing they've invested their energy into, bringing in this private senator's bill. The Liberal-National Party vision for Australia's is to make rich people pay less.

At the same time, we've seen debate in the chamber this week where they've screamed black and blue and fought tooth and nail against a tax cut for 13.3 million Australians. I don't know—helping 103,000 people who are already wealthy pay less tax or creating a tax framework that's fair and helps 13.3 million Australians. That's the Labor way. Compare and contrast, guys. The Liberal-National Party haven't got anything for you if you're an ordinary, hard-working, decent Australian. Unless you're a high wealth individual, they're not interested in you.

It reminds me of some shows that I watched when I was a kid, shows coming in particularly from the BBC, British shows like Upstairs, Downstairs, old shows about old money and new money and the battles between those. How ridiculous is it that those who have wealth, those who are advantaged, 103,000 people, should be the focus of this legislation instead of 13.3 million Australians. Now, the bill before me—

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

Class warfare at its best.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) | Link to this | Hansard source

Where's this class warfare thing coming from? That's not like you.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. I know there's been a lot of shouting from the other side over there, but I will take the—Yes, how dare they? Exactly. But I will take the—

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you read the bill?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Have I read the bill? Yes. I've had a look at the EM too, and, sadly, it's time I won't get back. But the reality is, yes, I have had a look. I've had a good look. This is what's wrong with the bill that is being proposed by your people. There's a problem with this bill that goes to something that I'm particularly interested at the moment, and that is when bad legislation that doesn't look forward enough and that doesn't go to looking at the consequences of its design causes a big problem, a moral hazard.

One of the things that's a problem with this bill is that it would potentially construct the gaming of preservation rules and social security payment eligibility. Now, setting up a fraudulent structure that allows the Australian people to be ripped off is absolutely not an outcome that ordinary hard-working Australians or anyone who's running a successful small business, or a large business for that matter, would think is good.

We've seen that before. When John Howard brought in the rules that changed the number of partnerships from 20, to allow places like PwC and KPMG to have up to a thousand partners, Senator Conroy, my former colleague in this place, rose to his feet and said that it was creating a moral hazard. Boy, was he right, because now we see in the full light of day how, when you don't think carefully about fraudsters, legislation gets created that allows fraud. Decent, hardworking, taxpaying Australians at all levels of the income spectrum pay a price for careless legislation, and this is certainly that.

I wish I had more time, because I can't get through everything that is actually going on to support women. The mischaracterisation of this bill as a support for women is just another joke from a party that has barely a woman in the House. I won't say that about the Senate; I respect the election of the women who are here in the Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with them in the national interest on committees, and I will always acknowledge and respect their roles. But there's barely a woman amongst them on the far side. There are no women inside speaking up loudly. Women can't get through a preselection process in the Liberal-National party. That's why they are where they are.

By comparison, we have women everywhere in our party, women everywhere in the Senate and women everywhere on the Labor benches in the other chamber. Because of that, and because of our longstanding commitment to equity and to women, we are taking practical action. So since 1 July last year, parents of newborn and adopted children have been eligible for superannuation to be paid on their government funded paid parental leave. These payments commence next week, from 1 July 2026. We did that. It's real, and it's going to help millions of Australians. It's not to help 103,000 high-wealth individuals avoid tax. We said that we were going to pay super on Commonwealth government funded paid parental leave to benefit around 180,000 Australian families every year. Ninety-five per cent of Commonwealth parental leave pay flows through to women. That's real stuff—real money in real Australians' pockets helping them to get ahead—not tax benefits for the very, very wealthy.

The Super Members Council estimates that super on paid parental leave will narrow the gender super gap by about a quarter. Super Member Council CEO Misha Schubert said:

We're not talking baby steps here—this is a huge stride forward to tackle women's retirement inequity.

So that's where we've started, to help women on leave get the superannuation on that pay so that it goes into their account. With compound interest, that makes a big difference. That's what superannuation does and that's why we are making sure it's fit for purpose, making sure that it supports women to grow their wealth and to grow their opportunity to live a fantastic and dignified retirement in this wonderful country of ours.

Paying super on paid parental leave is going to provide a boost to the retirement savings for those receiving Commonwealth parental leave pay, and it will particularly—significantly—help low-paid and vulnerable workers. So if you're not one of the 103,000, if you're a low-paid or vulnerable worker, if you're an authentic, decent Aussie who believes in fairness, this bill is not your kind of bill. This bill has got 'Liberal-National party' written all over it. It's only about the few people in the country that they want to make more wealthy at your expense.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We support this concept in One Nation because One Nation supports families, but I'll get on to that more in a little while. When I saw the title of this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I thought: 'This one is going in the bin. It's more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals.' But the bill title is false; it's misleading. Why? Is it because the Liberal Party needs to appease the Liberal moderates? Is it to attract the Greens vote? Is it because the Liberal-Nationals have become woke, continue to be woke? Oh, by the way, Liberal and Labor are exchanging barbs about females and looking after females. There's only one party with a female leader, and that's One Nation.

Oh, that's right; you're correct—the Greens.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Senator Wong? Women are invisible to you.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, you should not be interjecting—on your feet particularly.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure why the Liberals would feel the need to give this bill a woke name when the contents of the bill are nothing of the sort. This bill allows a spouse to transfer some of their super to their spouse's superannuation account, to even them out. That makes sense. Small super accounts grow more slowly than larger accounts, so lifting up your partner's account is a sensible exercise in financial management. The bill is well worded. The calculation on how much of a person's balance can be transferred is clearly expressed and fair.

In an era where women are earning more university degrees than men, 58 per cent to 42 per cent female to male, it's inevitable that female earnings will outstrip male earnings in some households. This bill works both ways. It builds on our superannuation income-splitting policy of lowering the tax rates for a family with at least one dependent child and one partner not working so he or she can look after the child, splitting the income and reducing the tax to give more after-tax income, to encourage families. We introduced that concept. We also introduced tax bracket indexation to get rid of the stealth tax on income tax.

Families need support. That's a key plank to One Nation policy. There are eight keys to human progress. They include: (1) freedom, which is being destroyed in this country under the uni party; (2) rule of law, which is being destroyed by making feelings part of law and ignoring the truth and contradicting the truth; (3) constitutional continuation for the stability of governance; (4) secure property rights; (5) strong families—strong families are essential for human progress. Families are one of the building blocks, one of the two key structures. The other is the nation state rather than a globalist approach. No. 6 is fair, efficient taxation to pay for government but to minimise that taxation, to minimise the size of government; (7) is to have cheap, affordable energy; and (8) is to have honest money. All of these things are being destroyed by the Labor and Liberal uni party.

One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor's tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) | Link to this | 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.

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading motion moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.