1. Non-Discrimination
2. Egalitarianism
3. Legal Principle [CEDAW Article 13]

The Bill directly addresses one of the most entrenched forms of gender inequality in Australia: the superannuation gap. By providing a simple, voluntary mechanism for spouses to share retirement savings during the accumulation phase, it recognises the unpaid care work disproportionately undertaken by women and promotes substantive equality in retirement outcomes.

Maintaining the original tax and contribution characteristics of rolled-over amounts ensures no additional tax burden, and the annual, opt-in structure respects individual autonomy. Enabling couples to plan retirement finances jointly strengthens family security and reduces the risk of poverty among elderly women, who on average retire with 20–25% less superannuation than men [Judgment].

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

Although well-intentioned, the Bill adds significant regulatory complexity and compliance costs for trustees and superannuation funds in order to service a mechanism that may see limited uptake. Processing, verifying and executing annual spousal rollovers requires system upgrades and ongoing administration, potentially increasing fees for all members.

Moreover, mandating a government-designed redistribution feature risks infringing on individuals’ property rights over their retirement savings and may distort incentives for personal saving and investment strategies [Judgment]. A lighter touch—such as improved financial education or targeted incentives—could tackle the gender super gap more efficiently.