Women may need between $12,000 and $20,000 a year more in retirement than their male partners, FMS Group director Christine Hornery said.
Women need to contribute more to their superannuation funds and implement different financial strategies to traditional income stream and superannuation savings.
Hornery said the needs of men and women are different and financial strategies do not reflect this, especially if the male has a strategy in place to suit his own income stream needs.
"Women have to become educated about their own financial situation, not just piggyback onto their partner's knowledge of finances," Hornery said.
"Women must see the importance of being educated financially, even if they are in a relationship and start developing a plan so they can live the life they want to live now and be financially free in retirement."
Hornery said women's spending habits are different to men, with hair and beauty costs alone pushing up a woman's cost of living.
"The truth is, women need more money than men but often earn less and therefore save less for retirement," she said.
"For women to have independence in retirement and feel a sense of worth and equality, they must contribute more to superannuation and have their own retirement income stream."
Since not every woman's spending patterns are the same, she encourages financial planners to talk to couples and ask questions to gauge the spending patterns of men and women and see if women need more money in retirement.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.