The 'gender gap' in retirement incomes is a big exaggeration

Besides all this, it is absolutely clear that the origins of the gender inequality described lie, not in the superannuation system itself, but ultimately in the labour market and also in the work/lifestyle choices made by women themselves.  If these issues are to be addressed at all, this should be done in the context of the labour market, and not by corrupting the superannuation system.

At this point is worth reviewing the broader nature of superannuation as it affects men and women in society. 

The traditional defined benefit superannuation funds (now mostly closed to new members) cover most former public servants (like myself) as well as many retirees from large companies.  These defined benefit funds have two characteristics that greatly benefit women.  They firstly offer retirement pensions that generally are not actuarially-based so that retiring women (even though they live on average live five years longer) get the same annual pension as retiring men with comparable service and contributions.  Secondly, in defined benefits' funds, women (as spouses) also disproportionately benefit from usually very generous death benefits from their partner's superannuation. 

For example, in the CSS scheme, to which I belong, my wife will receive 89 per cent of my indexed pension, if I die while our two sons are still in education.  Alternatively, she will receive 67 per cent of my pension, if I die and she has no dependents.  As my wife is five years younger than me, statistically she is likely to outlive me by about ten years.  Under such a scenario she can be expected (as a widow) to receive not one but two pensions: her own superannuation pension related to her own employment plus (eventually) 67 per cent of mine.  Her actual retirement savings will thus be far from the only contributor to her retirement income.

Most working Australians now have their super in an accumulation fund, which uses the accumulated sum to purchase an account-based or allocated pension after the member reaches preservation age.  A death benefit is normally paid to the surviving spouse, as either the superannuation account balance or a pension (which involves the surviving spouse keeping the benefit within the fund).  Such spouse death benefits are generally substantial but not as generous as those in defined benefit funds.  In future years these benefits will play an increasingly important role in funding the retirement of widows and (to a lesser extent) widowers.

In relation to divorce it should also be noted that the Family Law Act 1975 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA) both allow an interest in superannuation or a super payment to be divided or split by agreement or court order in the event of a relationship breakdown.  This is another mechanism whereby women can benefit from their partner's super.

Overall, the Human Rights' Commission and the Senate Committee both have it wrong when it comes to identifying the groups most disadvantaged by Australia's superannuation system.  By ignoring income sharing between partners, death benefits from superannuation to surviving spouses, and that the majority of retirees currently receive little by way of superannuation income, they are over-playing the "women's disadvantage" card.

I would argue that it is not women but single people who are dudded by Australia's superannuation system.  Singles and married persons are generally subject to the same contribution rates to superannuation.  Married persons, however, (especially in defined benefit funds) generally receive much more generous death benefits, while spouse pension benefits are totally inapplicable to singles.  Singles therefore get much less "bang-for-their-buck" from the superannuation system (discrimination based on marital status?), yet the Human Rights Commission and its fellow travellers remain silent on this matter, as they always seems to do when singles or those without children are discriminated against.

To get back to women and superannuation, the cover of the Senate Committee Report trumpets the (feminist?) slogan "A Husband Is Not A Retirement Plan".  This slogan denies both historic practice and aspects of reality.  While nobody likes dependence (now as well as years gone by) and women are far more independent today than in the past, there is no denying (the politically incorrect fact) that a well-to-do spouse can and usually does make a big difference to one's standard of living both before and after retirement.  His or her superannuation (not to mention inheritance) definitely can make an appreciable difference to a surviving spouse.