Senate voted down Hume's yearly super split for couples
Senator Jane Hume wanted couples to be able to move super from the partner with more to the partner with less, once a year. She said it would close the gap in women's savings for later life. The Senate voted against it on 24 June 2026.
Official name: Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025
- A partner with more super could have moved some to their partner once a year. They could move up to the amount that makes both balances equal.
- The partner's balance could not go over a set ceiling. That was $2 million when the bill was written.
- The move would not have been taxed as new money going into super.
- It was a choice, and both partners would have had to agree.
- The Senate voted down the main idea of the bill on 24 June 2026. That vote ended the bill.
Who it affects
- Couples where one partner has much more super: They could have evened out their balances once a year.
- Women who took time out of paid work: Their partner could have topped up their super to help close the gap.
- Super funds: They would have had to handle these moves within set time limits.
- People in older set-payout schemes or already getting regular payments from super: They could not have used the new option.
Women retire with less super
Super is money saved through your job for when you stop work. Its full name is superannuation. Most of it builds up from payments your boss makes while you work.
Senator Hume wrote notes to explain the bill. They say women stop work with 20 to 25 per cent less super than men. Estimates vary.
The notes say this is because women are more likely to take time out of paid work. They often care for children or older parents and do other unpaid work.
Super is already split between partners in a divorce. This bill aimed to let couples who are still together split their super while they are working.
This was a private bill. That means it did not come from the government. Senator Jane Hume brought it into the Senate on 4 September 2025.
How the yearly split worked
A member of a super fund could have asked their fund to move some of their super to their partner's fund. They could do this once every 12 months.
It would only work if the person asking had more super than their partner. The partner would also have had to agree in writing on the form.
Both partners would have needed to have only one super fund each. The notes say this would stop problems and cheating for people with many funds.
Say Sam has $200,000 in super and Alex has $50,000 after years at home with the kids. Sam could move up to $75,000 to Alex. That leaves them both with $125,000.
Limit on how much moves
The most you could move was called the spousal redistribution limit. It was the amount that would make both balances equal.
There was a second ceiling. The partner's balance could not end up above the general transfer balance cap. This is the most a person can move into a tax-free pension from super. The notes say it was $2 million that year.
The notes give an example. Person A has $5.5 million and Person B has $500,000. Person A could move up to $1.5 million. That brings Person B to the $2 million ceiling.
Couples could choose to move less than the limit. The person moving money could never end up with less than their partner.
Who was left out
The option would not have applied to older schemes that pay a set amount. That amount is based on pay and years of work.
It also would not have applied to super already being paid out as a pension. Nor would it apply to super already split in a divorce.
A person could not move super to a partner whose balance was already at or above the ceiling. They could not move super to a partner aged 65 or over.
They also could not move super to a partner who had reached the age to take out super and had stopped work. The partner could sign a statement that this did not apply to them.
Deadlines for super funds
The bill set time limits for super funds. If a form was missing details, the fund would have had 3 working days to ask for them.
The two funds would have had to swap details within 3 business days. The money would have had to move within 30 business days. There were some exceptions for investments that are hard to sell fast.
The fund getting the money would then have had to put it in the partner's account within 3 business days.
A fund would have had to say no to a form that broke the rules or asked for too much. It would also say no if it had reason to think a partner's statement was untrue.
How tax would work
Money going into super is usually split into parts that are taxed in different ways. One part comes from pay before tax. Another comes from money already taxed.
The bill said the money moved would keep the same mix of tax parts it had in the first fund. It would be treated as a rollover, which is a move between super funds.
The notes say that because it counts as a rollover, it would not bring new taxes.
Planned start
The changes would have started the day after the bill was signed into law. The Governor-General signs bills into law. The Governor-General is the King's representative in Australia.
The notes do not give a cost for the bill.
Voted down in the Senate
Senator Hume brought in the bill on 4 September 2025. She started the debate on its main idea that day. The Senate debated it on 5 November 2025, 13 May 2026 and 24 June 2026.
On 24 June 2026 the Senate voted on the main idea of the bill and said no. Because it lost that vote, the bill is finished. It will not become law.
How they voted
| Vote | Result |
|---|---|
| Vote on the main idea Senate, 24 June 2026 Labor 24 no, Liberal 18 aye, Greens 10 no, One Nation 4 aye, Nationals 2 aye, LNP 1 aye, Country Liberal 1 aye, Independent 1 aye | Noes won 34 to 27 |
Its journey through Parliament
| 04 Sep 2025 | Senate: Introduced and read a first time |
| 04 Sep 2025 | Senate: Second reading moved |
| 05 Nov 2025 | Senate: Second reading debate |
| 13 May 2026 | Senate: Second reading debate |
| 24 Jun 2026 | Senate: Second reading debate |
| 24 Jun 2026 | Senate: Second reading negatived |