Some people are surprised to find that superannuation is often ‘on the table’ in a property settlement. Why? They ask. Australia’s legal system recognises that often, one person in a relationship is more able to undertake paid work (earning income and superannuation) because the other person has supported them in doing that by taking on other necessary roles, like looking after the kids or the house. The Courts have found it is inherently prejudicial for one person to keep all of the superannuation and the other to have little to no retirement savings, particularly after longer relationships, where one person has sacrificed their ability to earn superannuation in order to care for the home and family. The Courts also take the view that if the main income-earner retained the bulk of the parties’ superannuation, the other person would likely become dependent on a government-funded pension later in life, meaning the public purse is paying to support them when there was perhaps sufficient superannuation available from the marriage to minimise that public burden. So, superannuation is often adjusted as part of a settlement to achieve and ‘just and equitable’ settlement, along with the other main assets like real estate, cars and savings.