154
11.1 Introduction
It is undoubtable that the current structure of Australia’s superannuation system is
systemically biased towards women. To this end, and as a symptom of systematic
policy inadeqauicies, women are retiring with 47% less superannuation than men
(Trust 2015; Campo et al. 2015; Agency 2017; Hetherington and Smith 2017; Riach
2018; Wood 2017; Feng et al. 2019). At present, women in Australia retire with
approximately half the superannuation (super) balance of men (Black 2015;
Committee 2016; Coates 2018; Koukoulas 2018; Agency 2017). According to financial data, men aged between 60 and 64 retire with an average superannuation balance of $270,710. Conversely, women in the same age bracket retire with only
$157,050 in super (see Table 11.1) (Agency 2017; Coates 2018). Further horrifically,
according to the Association of Australian Superannuation Funds (2018) 50% of
women approaching retirement in 2014 had a low super balance of nil to $49, 999.
1
Cameron (2013, p. 2) makes the salient point that ‘nowhere is the extent of gender inequality more starkly revealed than in the lifetime earnings and superannuation savings of men and women’. It is thus axiomatic that addressing the gender gap
in superannuation balances is vital: single and elderly women in Australia are at the
greatest risk of absolute poverty and housing stress in retirement (Coates 2018). The
2016 senate inquiry, entitled ‘a husband is not a retirement plan’, noted that ‘older
and single women are one of the fasted growing cohorts of people living in poverty’
(Committee 2016). In a similar vein, a report into the lived experiences by women
on the precarious cusp of poverty in retirement revealed the extent of structural
inequalities which women in Australia are subjected to (Parkinson et al. 2013). In
the report, women spoke of the stress of being unable to retire with one woman
acknowledging that:
We had retired at one stage and had no intention of returning to work…I was on carer’s
pension for quite a while but it just wasn’t meeting the need. We just couldn’t survive.
(Parkinson et al. 2013, p. 11)
The report also highlighted the impoverished financial circumstances in which
many elderly women in Australia live; these women used free showers at sporting
clubs, and many women adjusted their meals to suit their meagre budget:
Sometimes your food all day is a cup of tea and bread and a little butter and sometimes fruit
but you can’t buy meat and all the things you need. (Parkinson et al. 2013, p. 10)
It is indisputable that wealth inequality in retirement harms women. In this regard,
the reasons behind female financial inequality in retirement are multifaceted, however, interrupted career trajectories, the gender wage gap, and taking primary
responsibility for unpaid care work are critical explanatory factors that facilitate the
gender disparity in retirement and superannuation savings. COTA Australia saliently
emphasises that ‘the wheels of retirement income security are set in motion many
1 For men in the same age bracket, 33% had a low balance of nil to $49,999; see Funds (2018, p. 9).
C. Power
11.1 Introduction
It is undoubtable that the current structure of Australia’s superannuation system is
systemically biased towards women. To this end, and as a symptom of systematic
policy inadeqauicies, women are retiring with 47% less superannuation than men
(Trust 2015; Campo et al. 2015; Agency 2017; Hetherington and Smith 2017; Riach
2018; Wood 2017; Feng et al. 2019). At present, women in Australia retire with
approximately half the superannuation (super) balance of men (Black 2015;
Committee 2016; Coates 2018; Koukoulas 2018; Agency 2017). According to financial data, men aged between 60 and 64 retire with an average superannuation balance of $270,710. Conversely, women in the same age bracket retire with only
$157,050 in super (see Table 11.1) (Agency 2017; Coates 2018). Further horrifically,
according to the Association of Australian Superannuation Funds (2018) 50% of
women approaching retirement in 2014 had a low super balance of nil to $49, 999.
1
Cameron (2013, p. 2) makes the salient point that ‘nowhere is the extent of gender inequality more starkly revealed than in the lifetime earnings and superannuation savings of men and women’. It is thus axiomatic that addressing the gender gap
in superannuation balances is vital: single and elderly women in Australia are at the
greatest risk of absolute poverty and housing stress in retirement (Coates 2018). The
2016 senate inquiry, entitled ‘a husband is not a retirement plan’, noted that ‘older
and single women are one of the fasted growing cohorts of people living in poverty’
(Committee 2016). In a similar vein, a report into the lived experiences by women
on the precarious cusp of poverty in retirement revealed the extent of structural
inequalities which women in Australia are subjected to (Parkinson et al. 2013). In
the report, women spoke of the stress of being unable to retire with one woman
acknowledging that:
We had retired at one stage and had no intention of returning to work…I was on carer’s
pension for quite a while but it just wasn’t meeting the need. We just couldn’t survive.
(Parkinson et al. 2013, p. 11)
The report also highlighted the impoverished financial circumstances in which
many elderly women in Australia live; these women used free showers at sporting
clubs, and many women adjusted their meals to suit their meagre budget:
Sometimes your food all day is a cup of tea and bread and a little butter and sometimes fruit
but you can’t buy meat and all the things you need. (Parkinson et al. 2013, p. 10)
It is indisputable that wealth inequality in retirement harms women. In this regard,
the reasons behind female financial inequality in retirement are multifaceted, however, interrupted career trajectories, the gender wage gap, and taking primary
responsibility for unpaid care work are critical explanatory factors that facilitate the
gender disparity in retirement and superannuation savings. COTA Australia saliently
emphasises that ‘the wheels of retirement income security are set in motion many
1 For men in the same age bracket, 33% had a low balance of nil to $49,999; see Funds (2018, p. 9).
C. Power