Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 302

SMSF trustees may lose insurance after super changes

The ‘Protecting Your Superannuation’ package, proposed in the 2018 Federal Budget, was passed earlier this year, and while the changes were designed to protect small superannuation balances, there may be significant implications for others. Many SMSF members, or others with large super balances, maintain smaller public offer accounts solely to access well-priced group life insurance. This legislation may place those life policies at risk unless members take action.

Super changes already legislated

The key changes in this legislation take effect from 1 July 2019, and are designed to limit the erosion of small balances in the following ways:

  • Fees will be limited to no more than 3% per annum for accounts with a balance of less than $6,000.
  • Exit fees on all super accounts will be banned to remove barriers to consolidation.
  • Insurance will be maintained on an opt-in basis for inactive accounts, defined as those that have not received a contribution in 16 months. Funds will be required to contact inactive members before 1 May 2019 to confirm whether they wish to maintain their existing cover.
  • Super trustees will also be required to transfer all inactive accounts with balances below $6,000 to the ATO, which will then strive to transfer these balances to the owner’s active superannuation account.

(Please note: The proposal to make insurance an ‘opt-in’ for those commencing a superannuation account under the age of 25, or with a balance of less than $6,000, was dropped from this legislation and will be proposed in a separate bill, which has not yet passed).

If you have been maintaining a small inactive superannuation fund for insurance purposes, it is likely this legislation will affect you. You may have your insurance policy cancelled, or, if your balance is below $6,000, your policy cancelled AND your balance transferred to the ATO. Neither of these outcomes is desirable if you are intentionally arranging insurance cover in an account separate from your existing active super balance.

Benefits of insurance through a large fund

If you have an inactive account, your superannuation fund should contact you soon requesting that you opt in to maintain your insurance cover. However you will need to ensure they have the correct mailing details etc in order to contact you. If you have not heard from your fund by 1 May, it is strongly advised that you contact them directly to confirm that you wish to maintain your cover, if you wish to do so.

The implications of having insurance cancelled can be significant. It is widely accepted that thousands of small superannuation accounts are maintained in the public system by SMSF trustees purely for insurance purposes.

Superannuation funds can hold life, total and permanent disablement and income protection policies on your behalf. Large funds are also generally able to access group policies that offer lower premiums than personal policies such as those you can access through an SMSF. Large super funds also often offer ‘automatic acceptance limits’, which allow you take out cover up to pre-specified limits without having to undergo personal underwriting, which may include medical tests and so on.

In the event your existing cover is cancelled, you may not be able to get new cover on the same terms. You may need to disclose medical conditions that have arisen since you originally applied, and have higher premiums or exclusions as a result, or you may no longer be eligible for cover at all through that fund. In many circumstances, particularly if you are older, or have poor health or a high-risk occupation, your existing policy may be the only insurance policy you hold. It may also be the only affordable insurance you are able to get.

Qualifying a fund as active

Insurance is critical if you have debt, dependents or rely on your income for your financial security. If that insurance is held in a super fund you’re not contributing to, you will need to consider whether to make the fund active, or at least ensure that the trustee of the fund knows you want it by opting in. Part of the new legislation lists actions that qualify a fund as active, which include making contributions, rolling funds into the account, changing investment options, making changes to your insurance or making a declaration to the ATO. If you’re not sure what you have, exactly, this could also present a great opportunity to review your insurance and ensure you have the cover you need.

 

Gemma Dale is Director of SMSF and Investor Behaviour at nabtrade, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. Any information in this publication is of a general nature only. It is not intended to be a substitute for specialised advice and nabtrade is not a registered tax agent.

For more articles and papers from nabtrade, please click here.

 

  •   17 April 2019
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
Frank
April 17, 2019

Thanks for reminding me about this. It's why I keep my public fund.

Craig
April 21, 2019

As someone who can no longer be underwritten for any new life insurance, I have three of these public offer funds specifically for the insurance, as well as an SMSF where most of the money sits.

I contacted each fund to confirm what they need to mainatain a ‘active’ status. The Mercer fund nominated a contribution each 16 months. The IOOF fund said as long as i enquired each 16 months i would be ok. The Plum fund is my current corporate plan so is active.

To keep things simple, and so I don’t need to remember to do anything further, I set up a regular $5 monthly contribution to the Mercer and IOOF funds. Job done.

There will definitely be people who lose critical insurance via these changes. I have not had any communication about these changes from any of the 3 funds that i hold. 1st May is 10 days away, and everyone is on holidays.

Yet another example of why it is necessary for people to engage wth their super.

BeenThereB4
April 21, 2019

Craig should review the wisdom of having cover with 3 funds. I read that if you have a claim you can only claim on one policy.

Can anybody support my contention ?

Dean
April 21, 2019

This is a common and unfortunate misperception.

Ultimately it depends on the specific rules of each fund and insurance product involved. So be sure to read the fine print and/or get proper advice for your specific situation. But generally speaking it is quite OK to claim on multiple policies. The main area of restriction is with income protection. The overriding rule is not being able to claim more than about 75% of pre illness income in total across multiple income protection policies.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

What super changes should you know from 1 July?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

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.