Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 260

'Rorts and rip-offs’ prevention in super legislation

The ‘Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Savings Package) Bill 2018’ was tabled in Parliament on 21 June 2018, with superannuation measures foreshadowed in the last Federal Budget.

Key provisions of the Bill

1. A cap on fees and no exit fees

The Bill prevents superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees exceeding 3% per annum on balances of accounts below $6,000. It also prevents exit fees when members close or rollover their superannuation accounts, no matter their balance. This will remove a disincentive to superannuation fund members consolidating and closing unwanted accounts.

2. Life insurance within super only if chosen

Fund trustees can provide life insurance and charge premiums only on an opt-in basis, and only to new members aged under 25 years, members with account balances below $6,000, and members with inactive accounts, unless a member has directed otherwise. Fund members can choose lesser cover or seek other providers, saving their nest egg from unintended diminution.

3. Consolidation

Accounts below $6,000 will be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation if they have been inactive for a continuous period of 13 months. The Commissioner will be empowered to then proactively pay these amounts, plus those lost accounts already held by the ATO, into the rightful owner's active superannuation account. In conjunction with the ban on exit fees, this will assist consolidation.

A political stab at Labor

The first paragraph of Federal Minister Kelly O’Dwyer’s media release on the new Bill said it was:

“… action to protect the hard-earned superannuation savings of millions of Australians from rorts and rip-offs ... These measures address significant issues associated with the current default insurance arrangements in superannuation, which were also put in place in 2013 by then Minister for Superannuation, Bill Shorten.”

This is a justifiable shot across the political bow, given that Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of fund) Bill 2016 acknowledged that, due to enterprise bargaining agreements:

“Some employees cannot choose the superannuation fund into which their compulsory employer superannuation is paid. This prevents them making key decisions around their retirement savings, can result in the payment of unnecessary fees and insurance premiums, and can reduce competition between superannuation funds.”

In May this year, O’Dwyer opined that “about one-third of accounts were unintended multiple accounts because employers have forced them into a particular fund of their choice or unions have through enterprise agreements”.

Industry reactions

Industry reactions to the legislation is expected to be largely positive, although the loss of accounts will adversely impact some superannuation administrators and life companies.

Reaction to the consolidation measures included Julie Dolan, a principal of SMSF Consulting, who told SMSFAdviser:

“The ATO has already been tightening up on the efficiency of its current process of dealing with inactive accounts in order to transfer them into active accounts more quickly. The ATO are spending quite a lot of money on their data matching process and this latest measure is expected to push an extra $6 billion into super across 3 million active superannuation accounts. So that's a good thing.”

Treasury officials have estimated that there are roughly six million inactive super accounts in Australia belonging to four million members.

On the opt-out measure, AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest super fund, has already stopped signing up new members under 25 into life insurance automatically. According to a Rice Warner, an actuarial consultancy firm:

“At the highest premiums, a blue collar worker could be up to 34% worse off upon retirement age, or around $600,000 short compared to a blue collar worker without insurance in their super.”

Canstar, a financial comparison website, also reported that:

“There’s been an average premium rise of 215% for death and TPD cover and 82% for income protection over the last four years means the impact of insurance on a super balance is greater than ever.”

A person below 25 with no dependents and a low salary may not benefit from such a high dilution, or at least would benefit from greater tailoring of their life insurance needs. However, the industry should ensure the changes do not lead to under-insurance for people who need it.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar is an Assistant Editor of Cuffelinks.

 

  •   28 June 2018
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

Testamentary trusts have secured the CGT exemption

Meg on SMSFs: How wide is the ban on LRBAs?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

What if investment success depends less on picking the right assets and more on understanding the decisions of other investors? A principle borrowed from game theory offers a different perspective on markets.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.