The Bill introduces a multi-step process for survivors to enforce compensation orders. First, a victim or their representative may apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for information regarding a perpetrator's voluntary superannuation contributions. If eligible, the victim can then apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for a perpetrator contributions release order. This order authorises the Commissioner to issue release authorities to superannuation providers to remit funds to the ATO, which are then paid to the victim.
According to the explanatory memorandum:
Currently, perpetrators subject to criminal or civil proceedings... may be incentivised to make large additional contributions to their superannuation accounts to shield assets from potential compensations orders. Generally, superannuation assets are not available to a victim or survivor for compensation.[Explanatory Memo page 10].
The Bill is narrowly targeted to "additional contributions," such as member voluntary contributions and non-mandated employer contributions. It specifically excludes mandated employer contributions (Superannuation Guarantee) to preserve the core retirement income of the individual. A 10-year "look-back" period is established, starting from 10 years before the alleged conduct first occurred, to capture assets potentially hidden in anticipation of legal action [Explanatory Memo page 16].
Furthermore, the Bill ensures that these compensation debts survive bankruptcy. As noted in the Bills Digest, this addresses concerns that "convicted child sexual abuse perpetrators are deliberately hiding assets in superannuation accounts to defeat compensation claims" [Bills Digest page 1]. The amendments apply to offences and contributions made before, on, or after the commencement of the Act, provided the bankruptcy is not yet discharged.
The primary argument for this Bill rests on the principle of restorative justice and the integrity of the judicial system. For too long, the "preservation" rules of superannuation have been perverted by offenders to serve as a de facto tax haven, shielding millions of dollars from legitimate compensation claims. By allowing survivors to access these funds, the Bill ensures that court-ordered compensation is more than a symbolic gesture; it provides tangible resources for recovery and rehabilitation [Judgment].
From an Egalitarian perspective, the Bill corrects a profound power imbalance. Perpetrators often possess the financial literacy and resources to manipulate the superannuation system, while survivors—often dealing with lifelong trauma—are left with unenforceable debts. This legislation prioritises the rights of the victim to be made whole over the perpetrator's interest in retaining voluntary wealth accumulation. The exclusion of mandated employer contributions ensures that the perpetrator's basic right to a social safety net in retirement is maintained, making the intervention proportionate [Judgment].
Finally, the Legal Principle of enforcing judicial orders is central. A court order that cannot be enforced because the debtor has strategically placed assets beyond the reach of the law undermines the authority of the courts. By ensuring that these debts survive bankruptcy and can be satisfied through superannuation, the Bill reinforces the rule of law and ensures that the consequences of criminal conduct cannot be evaded through financial engineering.
While the intent of the Bill is compassionate, it represents a significant departure from the Legal Principle of superannuation preservation. The superannuation system is designed for the sole purpose of providing retirement income; opening it to civil or criminal compensation claims, however justified, creates a precedent that could lead to further erosion of the system's core objective [Judgment]. There are also concerns regarding the retrospective application of the law, which can undermine legal certainty and the principle that individuals should be able to rely on the law as it stands when making financial decisions.
From the perspective of Individual Autonomy, the Bill risks creating a class of citizens who are unable to support themselves in retirement, potentially shifting the burden of their care back onto the state via the age pension. Furthermore, the Bill may have unintended consequences for non-offending third parties. As noted by the Law Council of Australia, there is a risk that compensation claims could unintentionally burden a non-offending spouse during family law property settlements if the debt is treated as part of the net asset pool[1].
Finally, there is a Value-Neutral objection regarding the complexity of the "tracing" mechanism. Determining which contributions were made with the intent to "shield" assets versus those made as part of regular retirement planning is epistemically difficult. The 10-year look-back period is an arbitrary threshold that may capture legitimate savings, leading to protracted and expensive litigation that could further delay justice for survivors while increasing the administrative burden on the ATO and superannuation funds.
Law Council of Australia submission, cited in Bills Digest No. 54, 2025–26, p. 11.
2026-03-25
House of Representatives
Before House of Representatives
Unspecified
Treasury
Criminal Law Reform, Social Support / Welfare, Financial Regulation