Bills Digest No. 39 2004-05
Family Law Amendment (Annuities)
Bill 2004
This is a new edition of a Bills Digest (no.33,
2004-05) previously prepared for the 40th Parliament.
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Family Law
Amendment (Annuities) Bill
2004
Date
Introduced: 17
November 2004
House: Senate
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement:
The formal provisions
(sections 1 to 4) commence on Royal Assent; Schedule 1 commences on
17 December 2004; and Schedule 2 commences on proclamation or six
months after Royal Assent (whichever occurs first).
The Bill amends the Family Law
Act 1975 ( the Family Law Act ) to enable the Family Court of
Australia ( the Court ) (or another court having jurisdiction under
that Act) to divide certain annuities as part of a property
settlement between separating couples in the same way as the Court
currently divides the parties superannuation interests.
It is important to note that the
Bill only deals with eligible annuities . This term refers to those
annuities purchased with moneys rolled over from superannuation
funds (or similar lump sums). In accountancy parlance, there are
three main types of annuities: term annuities, lifetime annuities
and allocated annuities.(1) The type which seems to fall
most easily within the definition of eligible annuity is the
allocated annuity , whereby a lump sum is invested in return for
regular payments until all capital has been exhausted
.(2)
According to the Second reading speech for the Bill:
Annuities [that is, eligible annuities] are a financial
investment product primarily designed for use as retirement income.
They receive similar tax concessions and preferential treatment for
social security income and asset test purposes as superannuation
products.
The key
distinction between superannuation and annuity products is that
annuities are a contractual rather than a legislative product and
annuities fund managers are not subject to the same regulation that
applies to superannuation fund managers.(3)
Currently, the Court can make orders
in relation to annuities under Part VIII of the Family Law Act
(being the part which sets out the Court s general powers in
relation to property, spousal maintenance and maintenance
agreements). Part VIII only permits the Court to make orders
directed to a party to the marriage (such as an order that one
spouse must pay income to the other spouse from annuity
payments).(4)
Under Part VIIIAA of the Family Law Act (which is due to
commence on 17 December 2004), the Court will be empowered to make
orders and injunctions binding third parties. However, by virtue of
the current Bill, the Court will only be able to make an order
under Part VIIIAA in relation to those annuities which do not meet
the definition of eligible annuity . Part VIIIB of the Family Law
Act (which deals with superannuation interests) will apply to
eligible annuities .
In its platform for the 2001 federal election, the Government
promised to continue to reform the family law system in relation to
the division of matrimonial assets, saying:
We will ensure that life insurance products
[that is, eligible annuities] can be split by parties on divorce,
in the same way that couples will be able to split superannuation
interests.(5)
It may therefore be useful to examine the treatment of
superannuation interests under the Family Law Act.
Until the commencement of Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act on 28
December 2002, the Court had no power to divide superannuation
interests as part of a property settlement following the breakdown
of a marriage unless those interests had already
vested.(6) The only property which the Court could
divide between the parties was the type of asset which was able to
be liquidated readily, such as the former matrimonial home, motor
vehicles, shares and household effects. Likewise, even parties who
were able to agree on the terms of a property settlement without
requiring a determination by the Court could not agree to divide
future superannuation benefits.
The Court regarded a superannuation interest as a financial
resource available to the party in whose name the superannuation
fund was created and not as property to be divided between the
parties. Thus, the Court usually awarded a greater share of the
presently-available property to the non-superannuated spouse, in
recognition of the fact that the superannuated spouse would be
solely entitled to receive the superannuation moneys when he (or
she) retired and became eligible to receive them. However, any such
award was made in the exercise of the Court s discretion to make an
order for property settlement under section 79 of the Family Law
Act; there were no rules about how the Court was to treat
superannuation.
Thus, a property settlement may not
have been fair to either party one party may have received the bulk
of the assets and no future entitlement to superannuation/income
(either by way of periodic payments or a lump sum on retirement),
whereas the other party may have received few (if any) assets but
the whole of the future income entitlement.(7) The
result was particularly unjust where the parties had few (or no)
assets but a disproportionately large (and growing) future
entitlement to superannuation although in some cases, the Court
adjourned the proceedings until the vesting of the superannuation
(so that the superannuation could be included in the pool of
property available for distribution between the
parties).(8)
The situation was further complicated by the fact that the Court
had no power to make an order binding a third party, such as the
trustee of the superannuation fund. In Ascot Investments Pty
Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337, for example, the High Court
of Australia held that the Family Court had no power to make orders
imposing on a third party a duty which the third party was not
otherwise liable to perform.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s,
there was a series of discussion papers and reports on the
treatment of superannuation in property settlements. Importantly,
the Joint Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Operation and
Interpretation of the Family Law Act published its report in
November 1992. It recommended (at paragraph 9.62), among other
things, that the Family Law Act should be amended to include
superannuation entitlements as property; that the Court should be
empowered to order that superannuation be split and shared between
the contributing and non-contributing spouse ; and that a court
order should be required to direct the trustee of a superannuation
fund how to divide the entitlement .(9)
Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act was inserted by the Family
Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001. The
object of Part VIIIB is to allow certain payments (splittable
payments) in respect of a superannuation interest to be allocated
between the parties to a marriage, either by agreement or by court
order : section 90MA of the Family Law Act. Part VIIIB
comprises:
-
Division 1, which sets out preliminary matters such as
definitions of terminology
-
Division 2, which permits parties to agree to payment splitting
or flagging (and includes section 90MR, which provides that a
superannuation or flag-lifting agreement can be enforced by court
order, having regard to the principles of law and equity)
-
Division 3, which permits payment splitting or flagging by court
order
-
Division 4, which contains general provisions about payment
splitting (including fees payable to trustees and the waiver of
rights), and
-
Division 5, which contains miscellaneous provisions (including
the service of documents and the fact that an order made under Part
VIIIB is binding on the trustee in certain circumstances).
As noted in Australian Family Law and Practice, Part
VIIIB does not currently apply to annuities (eligible annuities or
otherwise):
the current changes do not directly cover
rollover life insurance products, such as annuity and deferred
annuity contracts. Hence, when a party has rolled over all or part
of their [superannuation] entitlement into a deferred annuity
product, the parties (and the Family Court) are not able to effect
a split of the underlying capital sum, as the life company is not
caught under Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act.(10)
Further, annuities do not seem to be mentioned in the series of
discussion papers and reports on the treatment of superannuation in
property settlements. However, as detailed in the Second reading
speech for the Bill, annuities were the subject of parliamentary
consideration in relation to the Family Law Legislation
(Superannuation) Amendment Act 2001 and the Family Law Amendment
Act 2003.(11)
Nonetheless, it is appropriate that eligible annuities (that is,
annuities that have been purchased with the proceeds of a
rolled-over superannuation fund or similar lump sum) should be
treated in the same way as superannuation, because, as noted in the
Second reading speech, the annuity may have been purchased with
moneys rolled over from a superannuation fund where:
-
the fund only permitted payment by way of a lump sum and not as
an income stream, or
-
the person changed his or her place of employment and the
particular superannuation fund did not allow for retention of funds
(for example, if the fund did not permit former employees/employees
of other organisations to contribute to the
fund).(12)
In such instances, the eligible annuity is really a
superannuation interest in another guise and should be treated in a
comparable way.
Schedule 1 commences on 17 December 2004, being the date when
Part VIIIAA commences.(13)
Clause 1 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed
section 90ACA into the Family Law Act. It provides that
the powers of the Court under Part VIIIAA in relation to orders and
injunctions binding third parties do not apply to
eligible annuities . That is, a court cannot make an order under
section 79 (the general power to make an order altering property
interests) or an order or injunction under section 114 (the general
power to make injunctions) where the order or injunction would be
directed to, or alter the rights, liabilities or property interests
of a third party in an eligible annuity . However, Part VIIIAA
(when it commences on 17 December 2004) will apply to annuities
which do not meet the definition of eligible annuity .
Proposed subsection 90ACA(2) defines the term
eligible annuity by reference to the definition of annuity in
section 10 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act
1993 ( the SIS Act ), which provides:
annuity includes a benefit provided by
a life insurance company or a registered organisation, if the
benefit is taken, under the regulations, to be an annuity for the
purposes of this Act.
The benefits which are taken to be annuities for the purposes of
the SIS Act are spelt out at length in regulation 1.05 of the
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994.
However, in order to constitute an eligible annuity for the
purposes of proposed subsection 90ACA(2), the
annuity must also be treated, for the purpose of Division 14 of
Part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ( the Tax
Act ) as being purchased wholly out of rolled-over amounts .
The term rolled over amount is defined in section 27A of the Tax
Act as follows:
rolled-over amount, in
relation to the purchase price of an annuity or superannuation
pension, means so much of an eligible termination payment as is
deemed by the application of section 27D to have been applied in
payment of any part of the purchase price.
The term eligible termination payment is also defined in section
27A of the Tax Act. The definition is complex it refers to various
types of payments made in respect of a taxpayer in consequence of
the termination of any employment of the taxpayer . In some
circumstances, it includes superannuation, and thus the proposed
amendments contained in the Bill would apply to annuities purchased
with rolled-over eligible termination payments (including
superannuation proceeds that do not constitute income).
Schedule 2 commences on proclamation or six months after Royal
Assent (whichever occurs first). The primary purpose of the delay
is to enable consequential amendments to be made to the Family Law
(Superannuation) Regulations 2001 in relation to the valuation of
annuities.(14)
Item 2 of Schedule 2 amends the definition of
eligible superannuation plan in section 90MD to include reference
to an eligible annuity . That term is inserted into section 90MD by
item 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill in the same
language as used in item 1 of Schedule 1.
Practical effect of the
amendments
The amendments mean that Part VIIIB will govern the treatment of
eligible annuities, because they will fall within the revised
definition of superannuation interest , even though that definition
is not the subject of amendment.(15)
The term superannuation interest is used in various provisions
in Part VIIIB and is defined in section 90MD as:
an interest that a person has as a member of an
eligible superannuation plan, but does not include
a reversionary interest (emphasis added).
As mentioned, item 2 of Schedule 2 amends the
definition of eligible superannuation plan to include reference to
an eligible annuity . Thus, references to a superannuation interest
in the Family Law Act are to be read as references to eligible
annuities, which means that the Court can make orders about
eligible annuities (and/or that parties can make financial
agreements dealing with eligible annuities) under Part
VIIIB.(16)
It is not clear why the amendments contained in the Bill are
restricted to eligible annuities and do not extend to all
annuities. The restriction may create unnecessary confusion,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It may also
create unfair results. For example, an annuity (eligible or not)
could be purchased with funds which the parties may otherwise have
used to purchase assets which could be distributed between the
parties in the event of a marital breakdown or which might
otherwise have provided the parties with retirement income (such as
a rental property). In order to purchase the annuity (directly or
indirectly via contributions to a superannuation or like fund), the
parties may have lived a more frugal lifestyle than might have been
the case if they had not purchased the annuity. Thus, both parties
can be regarded as contributing to the acquisition and growth of
the annuity, even if only one party made a direct financial
contribution to its purchase. Therefore, it may be unfair not to
compensate both parties appropriately, particularly if the annuity
is of greater value (real or anticipated) than current assets. By
splitting an annuity in the same way as the Court is now able to
split superannuation interests, both parties would have a
continuing interest in the annuity. Further, splitting the annuity
would result in an equitable solution providing retirement income
for both parties.(17)
That said, each case is determined on its own facts and merits.
The amendments may produce a more just and
equitable result in some property settlement cases than may occur
under the present legislation, but the outcome will also depend on
factors such as:
-
the nature of the property to be divided between the parties
-
the parties contributions to that property and the family unit,
and
-
the relevance of any of the matters specified in section 75(2)
of the Family Law Act (such as the age and health of the parties)
which may cause the Court to adjust the parties contribution-based
entitlements to the property.(18)
Moreover, two things should be noted: annuities comprise only
2.3 per cent of all superannuation assets and even then, they seem
to be on the decline.(19) Thus, on the assumption that
relatively few people hold annuities, the amendments may be of
limited application.
At first blush, the proposed amendments may not seem to achieve
their intended purpose without further legislative amendment. That
is, the Bill seems to do no more than insert or amend definitions
in section 90MD of the Family Law Act. For example, the Bill does
not amend section 90MA (which sets out the object of Part VIIIB,
being to allow certain payments (splittable payments) in respect of
a superannuation interest to be allocated between the parties to a
marriage, either by agreement or by court order ) or section 90MC
(which provides that a superannuation interest is to be treated as
property for the purposes of paragraph (ca) of the definition of
matrimonial cause in section 4 ) to refer expressly to eligible
annuities.(20)
It could be argued that the lack of explicit reference to
eligible annuities in the substantive provisions of Part VIIIB may
be confusing to the general public (or even to lawyers who do not
practise exclusively in family law). Any confusion may be overcome
by the insertion of a note drawing attention to the application of
Part VIIIB to eligible annuities.
Nonetheless, the Bill achieves its purpose in a neater way than
amending every section in Part VIIIB (or inserting a whole new part
dealing with eligible annuities) simply by amending the definition
of the term eligible superannuation plan . That definition in turn
feeds into the definition of superannuation interest . Therefore,
once the reader appreciates that the term superannuation interest
includes eligible annuities, there should be no confusion about the
scope and application of Part VIIIB.
-
A useful description of the three types can be found at:
http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FEDE-C66356EA/cpa/hs.xsl/3668_9844_ENA_HTML.htm
(as at 23 August 2004).
-
ibid.
-
Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Second reading speech: Family
Law Amendment (Annuities) Bill 2004 , House of Representatives,
Debates, 11 August 2004, p. 32 378.
-
An exception to this premise occurs where a third party has
formally intervened in the proceedings.
-
Paragraph (iii), Part 2 (Helping Families Solve Their Legal
Problems), The Howard Government, Putting
Australia s Interests First: Election 2001 Our Future
Action Plan: Better Law, More Options, 2 November 2001, p.
8.
-
Part VIIIB was introduced into the Family Law Act by the
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act
2001.
-
See, for example, Coulter v Coulter (1990) FLC
92-104.
-
See, for example, O Shea and O Shea (1988) FLC 91-964,
where the Court adjourned the proceedings for 20 years.
-
Joint Select Committee on Certain Aspects of the Operation and
Interpretation of the Family Law Act, The Family
Law Act 1975: Aspects of its Operation and
Interpretation, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra, November 1992, pp. 251 252.
-
Australian Family Law and Practice (looseleaf service),
CCH Australia Ltd, North Ryde (NSW), 2003 at 38-160.
-
Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Second reading speech: Family
Law Amendment (Annuities) Bill 2004 , House of Representatives,
Debates, 11 August 2004, p. 32 379.
-
ibid.
-
Part VIIIAA is inserted by Schedule 6 of the Family Law
Amendment Act 2003.
-
Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Second reading speech: Family
Law Amendment (Annuities) Bill 2004 , House of Representatives,
Debates, 11 August 2004, p. 32 379.
-
Section 90MB of the Family Law Act provides that Part VIIIB of
the Family Law Act overrides other laws and trust deeds.
-
A financial agreement can deal with annuities, regardless of
whether the annuities exist when the agreement is made: section
90MH of the Family Law Act. The part of the agreement that deals
with superannuation interests (including eligible annuities) is a
superannuation agreement for the purposes of Part VIIIB of the
Family Law Act: subsection 90MH(2).
-
Joint Select Committee, op. cit., p. 246 at paragraph 9.37
(although this argument is made there in relation to the slitting
of superannuation funds).
-
See section 79 of the Family Law Act.
-
Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Second reading speech: Family
Law Amendment (Annuities) Bill 2004 , House of Representatives,
Debates, 11 August 2004, p. 32 379, and Barrie Dunstan, An
income for your life , (The Smart Investor), Australian
Financial Review 26 June 2004, p. 38.
-
Paragraph (ca) of the definition of matrimonial cause in section
4 of the Family Law Act provides as follows:
(ca) proceedings between the parties to a
marriage with respect to the property of the parties to the
marriage or either of them, being proceedings:
(i) arising out of the marital
relationship;
(ii) in relation to concurrent, pending or
completed proceedings between those parties for principal relief;
or
(iii) in relation to the dissolution or
annulment of that marriage or the legal separation of the parties
to that marriage, being a dissolution, annulment or legal
separation effected in accordance with the law of an overseas
jurisdiction, where that dissolution, annulment or legal separation
is recognized as valid in Australia under section 104.
Morag Donaldson
23 November 2004
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2004
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Parliamentary Library, 2004.
Back to top