The first proposal by the federal government would allow a super fund to overrule a binding death benefit nomination if it believes “on a fair and reasonable basis” the chosen beneficiary has perpetrated abuse.
The two other proposed options would require the courts to determine whether domestic violence was present in the relationship before a super fund could decide death benefit payments.
EARG Coordinator Jasmine Opdam says involving the courts is unacceptable.
“Those options are based on a misapprehension that every victim-survivor of family violence will have a court order confirming this, and it assumes that court and police records are the only forms of evidence of family violence,” she said.
“All you have to do is look at the attrition rates as cases go through the criminal justice system and see how few reports of family violence actually go to court, let alone result in convictions.”
She also said it placed all the onus on the family.
“You’re asking someone who has just lost a loved one … you’re asking them to then also go and retain a lawyer and pay tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to go through expensive and time-consuming court proceedings, which might actually eat up most of the value of the superannuation anyway,” Ms Opdam said.
…
Ms Opdam says [mandatory superannuation service standards that include training and capacity to identify and support members experiencing domestic and family violence] should already have been implemented.
“Superannuation funds are definitely lagging behind the rest of the financial services sector,” she said.
“These funds should be training their staff to handle these cases appropriately and provide the necessary support to their customers.
“We expect that of banks, we expect that of many other financial service providers and telecommunications providers now are legally required to do that, so there’s no reason [super funds] shouldn’t be in the same category.”