to allow compensation debts to survive perpetrators’ bankruptcies.
Background
Compensation for victims of crime
Currently, there are three avenues through which a victim of crime can seek compensation:
- state and territory compensation schemes – where the state or territory, rather than the offender, pays compensation directly to a victim of crime
- compensation or reparation orders handed down as part of, or subsequent to, the sentencing process in a criminal proceeding – requiring the offender to pay the victim and
- civil action pursued by the victim against an offender or alleged offender for damages – requiring the offender to pay the victim.
According to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (p. 5), ‘across all the avenues outlined above, the offender’s superannuation assets are not available to the victim or survivor’.
Australia has adopted a trust structure for governance of superannuation funds. Members (beneficiaries) do not hold superannuation assets. Instead, these assets are managed on behalf of beneficiaries by trustees who have fiduciary and statutory obligations under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to act in the beneficiaries' best interests.
Superannuation trustees are currently unable to pay preserved benefits except in specified situations under Division 6.3 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994.[1] Some of the conditions of the release of benefits - including retirement, reaching preservation age, death, and others - are listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
As explained by Treasury (p. 5), ‘[c]onsequently, offenders subject to criminal or civil proceedings, or those anticipating such proceedings, may be incentivised to voluntarily make large personal contributions to their or their spouse’s superannuation accounts to shield assets from potential compensation orders.’ Treasury also noted (p. 5) that ‘[i]n recent years, there have been a number of high-profile reports of convicted child sexual abuse offenders deliberately hiding millions of dollars’ worth of assets in superannuation accounts to defeat compensation claims.’
Previous reviews of superannuation and victims of crime compensation
Review of superannuation and victims of crime compensation
In December 2017, the Turnbull Government commenced a review into early release of superannuation on severe financial hardship and compassionate grounds. As part of this process, it sought views on whether superannuation should be available to meet unpaid victims of crime compensation orders. The review received over fifty submissions in response to its initial consultation paper. It also held ten roundtables and conducted several bilateral meetings with stakeholders (p. 3).
On 26 March 2018, the then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer, announced that the Government would legislate to ensure that victims of serious crimes would be able to access the perpetrator’s superannuation. She indicated that the Government hoped to introduce relevant legislation by the end of 2018.
On 28 May 2018, the Minister released for public consultation two draft proposals on access to superannuation for victims of crime:
- The first was a new claw-back mechanism for ‘out of character’ superannuation contributions made by criminals to shield their assets from use in compensating victims of their crimes.
- The second was to allow victims of serious, violent crimes to be able to access a perpetrator’s superannuation as compensation, where other assets have been exhausted, subject to appropriate limits and thresholds.
The Government received 21 submissions in response to the draft proposals. The reforms do not appear to have ever progressed (with media reporting in January 2023 noting the reforms had stalled).
Consultation on access to offenders’ superannuation for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse
In January 2023, the Albanese Government announced it was seeking stakeholder views on two draft proposals to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to access the superannuation of their offender for unpaid compensation orders. Media reporting noted that the announcement followed ‘a long campaign for change by former Australian of the Year Grace Tame, along with other survivors, as reported by 7.30’.
These proposals ‘seek to support victims and survivors in accessing redress by preventing child sexual abuse offenders from shielding their assets in the superannuation system’:
- The first proposal would allow victims and survivors to release ‘additional’ contributions from an offender or spouse’s superannuation to satisfy an unpaid compensation order.
- The second proposal aims to improve transparency and reduce the cost and complexity of pursuing compensation by providing visibility of superannuation accounts to ascertain the value of the ‘additional’ contributions made by an offender.
A Discussion Paper was published, and the consultation process has now been completed. Submissions do not appear to have been published, though some stakeholders have published their submissions independently which are discussed further below.
On 2 February 2026, the Government announced it would undertake a consultation process ‘on draft legislation designed to prevent convicted child sexual abusers from hiding their assets in superannuation to avoid paying compensation to their victims.’ Consultation closed on 20 February 2026 and submissions do not appear to have been published (though some stakeholders have published their submissions independently which are discussed further below).
Consultation on preventing perpetrators from accessing victims’ super death benefit
On 5 March 2026, the Australian Government announced consultation on separate legislative reforms to prevent family and domestic violence (FDV) perpetrators from receiving their victims' superannuation death benefits. Submissions are currently open and a Discussion Paper has been released.
Policy position of non-government parties/independents and stakeholders
While noting its support for the underlying policy intent of the proposed reforms, the Law Council of Australia expressed ‘caution with some aspects of the proposals’ and noted ‘the inherent risk of extending access to superannuation funds as a solution for other policy issues’ (p. 3). The Law Council raised concerns about a number of issues (discussed further in the Key Provisions section below) and noted that:
It appears likely that once in place, the proposed framework will create a demand for legal assistance from victim-survivors seeking to access the scheme. Consideration should be had to ensuring these reform measures are accompanied by adequate increases to frontline legal services, to ensure there is sufficient capacity to respond to this increase in legal need. (p. 11)
In its submission on the Discussion Paper, the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) argued that ‘the Scheme should be tailored to allow access only to additional voluntary superannuation contributions made by an offender for the purpose of shielding assets to avoid paying court-ordered compensation within a limited “deeming period”’. (p. 2). The need for the reforms to only apply to superannuation contributions that have been made for the purpose of avoiding payment of compensation was also raised by other stakeholders (for example, see Law Council, pp. 4-5). In a joint submission, the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, CPA Australia, Financial Planning Association, Institute of Public Accountants and the SMSF Association submitted that the policy should only apply to ‘out of character contributions’:
We suggest that all personal contributions, including those that are claimed as a tax deduction and salary sacrifice contributions that do not fit the offender’s normal contribution pattern. Contributions made for a spouse and contributions split with a spouse should also be considered, as should unclaimed superannuation monies held by the Australian Taxation Office. It is possible to withdraw super benefits and have them deposited into a super fund in the name of another person. The bankruptcy-superannuation provisions contain “tracing” rules and similar provisions would be required here. It is often reasonably clear that contributions are in or out of character. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority could be given sufficient powers to adjudicate any dispute. (pp. 2-3)
This position was not shared by the Australian Lawyers Alliance who submitted ‘that a portion of the perpetrator’s full superannuation pool should be accessible to their victims and survivors to satisfy a compensation order or agreed settlement, not merely the perpetrator’s “additional” contributions.’ (p. 12) The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Limited argued that the scope of additional contributions should not be limited to those made to the account of the offender or their spouse:
It would be possible for an offender to fund a contribution to the superannuation account of a third person, such as a family member or friend, with an understanding that when that person becomes eligible for a benefit they will remit a portion of their superannuation benefit to the offender. (p. 2)
The Law Council questioned whether the amendments would capture foreign superannuation interests:
Many individuals transfer overseas super funds to Australia years after migration, and contributions made during the offending period could be embedded within those foreign accounts. Similarly, individuals who transfer foreign funds within the permitted six-month window after arrival may have contributions from the offending period sitting in funds outside Australia’s regulatory reach. There is also the unique situation of individuals who are members of United Nations, World Bank, or other exempt international retirement schemes. (p. 5)
The LIV raised concerns about the impact the reforms may have on a perpetrator’s dependents:
While an offender faces criminal consequences, the LIV notes that the offender’s family may be subjected to the ongoing social and financial impact of the offender’s conduct, including the loss of any income provided or child support payable by the offender while he or she is incarcerated. The LIV recommends that where superannuation is the primary asset of an offender with dependent children, the Court ought to be required to consider the impact that any order to pay compensation from additional contributions will have on parties with an accumulated or secondary interest in the superannuation, such as the offender’s children. (p. 6)
While supportive of the proposed reforms, the Queensland Family & Child Commission noted that ‘implementation must be carefully designed to avoid placing additional procedural, financial, or emotional burdens on victim-survivors’ and that:
… access to superannuation should not be viewed as a substitute for comprehensive redress and support mechanisms, including the National Redress Scheme and specialist trauma-informed services. Rather, this reform should be understood as one component of a broader, integrated national approach to accountability, recognition and long-term healing for victim-survivors. (p. 3)
Other submitters, such as Parkerville Children and Youth Care, noted that while the reforms improve access to compensation, this will only benefit those who have had the ability to bring a criminal or civil action:
Even with improved procedures, many children, young people and families that we support will still not feel able to bring a claim because it is costly, time-consuming, emotionally traumatic, there is no guarantee of success, and the offenders (non-institutional actors) frequently do not have the resources to pay compensation, if ordered to do so. The risk, then, continues to be that a two-tier system is in place, and that families with fewer material and psychosocial resources, greater complexity and multiple disadvantage are less able to initiate and/or navigate the compensation process. (p. 5)
Relationships Australia has previously argued that the reforms should be expanded to also include victim survivors of domestic and family violence offences:
It is unclear what principles have been applied to determine that the experiences of this group of victim survivors are so distinct in degree and kind of trauma and harm endured by child and adult victim survivors of other kinds of offences to justify exclusion of the latter from accessing compensation by the means proposed. It is unclear why other victim survivors should not have similar recourse against perpetrators who would exploit legal artifices to shelter against compensatory orders.
…
From a budget policy perspective, and a distributive justice perspective, it would be preferable for ‘additional’ contributions to be recoverable by victim survivors from perpetrators than for victim survivors to otherwise be forced to rely on social security. (pp. 4-5)
Key issues and provisions
Access to perpetrators’ superannuation for victims of child abuse
Division 1 of Schedule 1 amends the TAA to introduce Division 139—Access to perpetrators’ superannuation for victims of child abuse. This new Division (comprised of proposed sections 139-1 to 139-170) allows a victim of a specified child abuse offence to access the superannuation of the perpetrator in certain circumstances. An overview of this process is set out in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Overview of the process for survivors to enforce compensation owed to them
Source: Explanatory Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026, p. 5.
Proposed section 139-15 provides that a ‘specified child abuse offence’ means:
- a ‘child sexual abuse offence’ within the meaning of subsection 3(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (which includes both a Commonwealth child sex offence and a state/territory registrable child sex offence)
- an offence under Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) where the victim or survivor is under 18 years of age at the time the offence is committed (excluding a range of general trafficking offences in which the relevant conduct is covered by other offences that apply specifically to child victims).
In the 2023 Treasury Discussion Paper, the Government explained that:
Jointly, the above offence classes would appropriately target the application of the proposal to the most relevant criminal conduct. A benefit of adopting this approach over alternatives like maximum custodial sentence thresholds or manually listing offences is that any future relevant legislative reform is likely to be automatically captured. This minimises the need for consequential legislative changes in the future. (p. 8)
Subdivision 139-A: Applying for visibility of certain superannuation information
Before a victim can apply for a court order to access a perpetrator’s superannuation, they must first request that the Commissioner provide certain information about the perpetrator’s superannuation assets. Proposed subsection 139-10(2) allows for such a request to be made by a range of persons, including the victim’s legal representative, a tax agent, or a person providing personal or financial counselling services.
A request can only be made where the person making it reasonably believes that the following circumstances (which are the criteria for the making of a ‘perpetrator contributions release order’ and are set out in proposed paragraphs 139-55(1)(a) to (e)) exist in relation to the offence:
- the perpetrator has been convicted of, or where there is no conviction recorded, found guilty of a specified child abuse offence to a criminal standard. According to the Explanatory Memorandum (p. 6), this includes circumstances where a recognisance release order or similar order has been made
- a court has made an order requiring the perpetrator to pay compensation to the victim for injury, loss or damage suffered by the victim as a direct result of a specified child abuse offence. According to the Explanatory Memorandum (p. 6), this is regardless of whether the order was made before or after the conviction or finding of guilt and whether the order was made in the same court which convicted the perpetrator of the offence or a different court in civil proceedings
- the amount has been due and payable for at least 12 months
- the perpetrator has not paid the full amount of compensation specified in the order and
- the period within which recovery of the amount may be pursued in a court in the jurisdiction where the order was made has not expired (note that this is set out in the relevant state/territory statute of limitations).
A request must meet the requirements set out in proposed section 139-20. The Commissioner is not expected to independently verify the application or assess whether the application criteria have been met. If the Commissioner is satisfied that the request meets these requirements, the Commissioner must disclose the following information to the person who made the request (proposed section 139-30):
- the sum of the contributions covered by proposed subsection 139-30(3) made within the ‘eligible period’ (discussed below) to the perpetrator’s ‘superannuation interests’ (as defined at section 995.1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)) from the 2002-03 financial year onwards,[2] including specifying the relevant eligible period and
- the perpetrator’s ‘total superannuation balance’ (see section 307-230 of the ITAA 1997), where the perpetrator’s total superannuation balance is lower than the amount of relevant additional contributions identified.
Proposed subsection 139-30(3) sets out the additional contributions that must be included when calculating the sum of the perpetrator’s contributions:
Proposed subsection 139-30(4) provides that there are a number of contributions which are not included when calculating the sum of the perpetrator’s contributions, including defined benefit contributions and a contributions-splitting benefit (where the person has split their superannuation with their spouse). As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum:
Broadly, the amount of additional contributions do not include contributions an employer is mandated to pay, whether paid at the legislated minimum (i.e. superannuation guarantee contributions) or at a higher rate as negotiated as part of an industrial agreement or award. This is because the intention is to prevent misuse of superannuation to shield the assets of perpetrators from their victims or survivors. Certain other types of contributions are specifically excluded from eligibility to ensure that only amounts that are made to deliberately shield assets from compensation are eligible. (pp. 9-10)
When determining the amount of contributions made during the eligible period, any concessional contributions that are identified are to be multiplied by 0.85 to take account of the 15 per cent tax paid by the superannuation fund upon those contributions being made.
Subject to the exclusion of contributions made prior to 1 July 2002, the eligible period starts from the day that is 10 years before the day the victim or survivor alleges the conduct constituting the eligible offence first occurred and ends on the day an application for visibility of a perpetrator’s superannuation interests is given to the Commissioner. As noted by the Explanatory Memorandum, this may mean that these amendments apply retrospectively:
The parameters for the eligible period are designed to encapsulate the period where a perpetrator may have deliberately shielded their assets in the superannuation system to avoid paying compensation orders or in anticipation of compensation orders. As such, the amendments may have some retrospective application, as they apply to existing court-ordered compensation. Further, the superannuation contributions in scope are those made during the eligible period, which is linked to the offending conduct, which may have begun for a particular perpetrator before these amendments commence. (p.11)
The Commissioner must notify the perpetrator of the disclosure when (or as soon as practicable after) the Commissioner provides the applicant with the superannuation information (proposed section 139-35). This notification cannot include the name of the victim or the person who made the request. There is no opportunity for the perpetrator to object to the disclosure of the information and merits review does not apply to the Commissioner’s decision to release information.
Subdivision 139-B: Perpetrator contributions release orders
If information is provided under Subdivision 139-A, a victim may apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) to authorise the Commissioner to require the release of amounts from the superannuation interests of perpetrators (proposed paragraph 139-55(1)(f)). The application must name the perpetrator as a respondent and include (proposed subsection 139-55(2)):
- the information disclosed by the Commissioner
- the amount of compensation that the perpetrator is required to pay the victim under the relevant court order (a copy of the court order must be included)
- the period within which recovery of the amount may be pursued in a court in the jurisdiction where the order was made
- the amount of compensation that the perpetrator has paid the victim (if any) and
- the day that is 10 years before the first day on which the victim alleges that the conduct constituting the specified child abuse offence first occurred.
The Court may make a perpetrator contributions release order where:
- the Court is satisfied that the circumstances mentioned in proposed paragraphs 139‑55(1)(a) to (e) exist (discussed above, which relate to whether a perpetrator is required to pay compensation)
- the Court has not been made aware by a party to the proceeding that there are any applications in relation to the perpetrator that have been made and not finally determined (these include bankruptcy, proceeds of crime, family law and certain corruption proceedings as set out in proposed subsection 139-60(2))
- the Court has not been made aware by a party to the proceeding that the perpetrator is a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act in respect of a bankruptcy from which the perpetrator has not been discharged and
- the Court has not been made aware by a party to the proceeding that a restraining order (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act) in relation to the perpetrator’s superannuation interests is in force.
The perpetrator is required to notify the Court of relevant bankruptcy, proceeds of crime, corruption offence, or family law proceedings, bankruptcy periods or restraining orders that are on foot or in force as soon as practicable after having received the originating application (proposed section 139-90). A failure to notify in accordance with these requirements is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units ($16,500).
The purpose of not allowing a Court to make an order where other proceedings are on foot is to ensure that these proceedings can be finally determined (see proposed section 139-80) before the Court can make a perpetrator contributions release order. The Law Council noted while ensuring that family law proceedings are determined first provides certainty, it ‘may increase the amount of time for victim-survivors to be able to access funds, or may even risk defeating, or materially reduce available funds to settle the victim-survivors compensation order’. (p. 6) The Law Council also raised concerns about the impact compensation claims may have on a person’s spouse in family law proceedings:
We further note the Exposure Draft Bill does not include proposed amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to address competing claims, nor is there clarity about how a compensation claim will be treated during a property settlement. Under current principles, debts, such as tax liabilities, are usually treated as part of the net asset pool and shared between parties. Without legislative intervention, this could unintentionally burden the non-offending spouse. We recommend further consideration is given to this issue.
A related issue arises where a significant tax debt exists, and the Commissioner is joined as a party to family law proceedings. This raises whether similar provisions could apply to outstanding compensation claims. It may be appropriate for the Commissioner to consider compensation liabilities when engaging in family law or recovery proceedings, particularly where tax debt recovery actions intersect with the offender’s property pool. Establishing a formal mechanism to recognise compensation orders in these proceedings could help ensure that victim-survivors are not pushed to the back of the creditor queue. (p. 6)
In its submission to the 2023 Treasury Discussion Paper, the Victims of Crime Assistance League (Hunter) argued that where ‘the offender is bankrupt, or has bankruptcy proceedings afoot, we believe the superannuation release order should stand, and payment prioritised as opposed to waiting for bankruptcy proceedings to be finalised’ (p. 2). The organisation also argued that the legislation should prioritise the payment of compensation to victim-survivors over other types of proceedings (p. 5).
The perpetrator contributions release court order must specify the total amount to be released across a perpetrator’s superannuation interests (proposed subsection 139-60(3)). The total amount that can be released from a perpetrator’s superannuation must not exceed the lesser of:
- the additional contributions made by or on behalf of the perpetrator in respect of all their superannuation interests during the eligible period and
- the amount of any outstanding relevant compensation debt.
The perpetrator will be able to oppose the making of an order on the following grounds (proposed section 139-85):
- one or more of the circumstances mentioned in proposed paragraphs 139-55(1)(a) to (e) do not exist
- that the sum of contributions disclosed by the Commissioner under proposed subsection 139-25(1) was incorrect (the perpetrator has the burden of proving that the amount of contributions disclosed was incorrect)
- that the date on which the victim alleges that the conduct constituting the specified child abuse offence first occurred is incorrect and that because the date is incorrect, the sum of contributions disclosed by the Commissioner under proposed subsection 139-25(1) is incorrect (the perpetrator has the burden of proving that the date is incorrect and because of this, the amount is incorrect)
- any of the other matters stated in the application for the order are incorrect
- any other matter to which the Court grants the perpetrator leave to object.
Subdivision 139-C: Releasing money following perpetrator contributions release orders
Following the making of an order under Subdivision 139-B, the Commissioner may require superannuation providers to release amounts from the superannuation interests of the perpetrator of the specified child abuse offence, for payment to the victim. This is done by the Commissioner issuing a release authority (proposed subsection 139-115(1)).
Each release authority must be issued to a single superannuation provider, specify the amount to be released from each superannuation interest, be dated, identify that it is a release authority issued following a court order under proposed section 139-60 and contain any other information the Commissioner considers relevant (proposed section 139-125). Due to constitutional limitations, the release authority cannot be issued to an retirement savings account (RSA) provider that is not a constitutional corporation or to a trustee of a superannuation fund that is not a regulated superannuation fund (proposed subsection 139-115(2)). Multiple release authorities may be issued, however the total amount released in accordance with the release authorities must not exceed the amount specified by the Court in the perpetrator contributions release order. The Commissioner will also have the power to vary or revoke a release authority (proposed section 139-130).
A superannuation provider has 10 days after the authority has been issued (or a further period agreed by the Commissioner) to pay the Commissioner the lesser of (proposed subsection 139-135(1)):
- the amount stated in the release authority and
- the sum of the maximum available release amounts for each superannuation interest (excluding any defined benefit interests unless the superannuation provider voluntarily chooses to include these as per proposed section 139-40) held by the superannuation provider in superannuation plans for the perpetrator.
Section 288-95 in Schedule 1 to the TAA provides for an administrative penalty of 20 penalty units for failing to comply with a release authority. Item 13 of the Bill will amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) to insert proposed paragraph 120(1)(d). This has the effect that if a superannuation provider that is a Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) fails to comply with a release authority issued under proposed Division 139, all the trustees of the SMSF and all the directors of a corporate trustee of the SMSF will be disqualified persons under the SIS Act. This will have significant consequences for the SMSF:
In circumstances where persons are disqualified under this rule, the SMSF will need to be dissolved and the relevant superannuation interest transferred to independent management, either by rolling over the interest into an APRA-regulated fund, or ceding trustee duties to an independent trustee and converting the SMSF into a small APRA fund. In such circumstances, the Commissioner will have the power to vary or revoke the release authority and reissue the release authority to the new superannuation provider responsible for the management of the perpetrator’s superannuation interest. (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 25)
According to the Explanatory Memorandum (p. 25) ‘[c]onsequential amendments will be made to superannuation regulations to ensure that superannuation providers may release benefits without breaching preservation rules in response to the type of release authority introduced by these amendments.’
A superannuation provider is not required to comply with the release authority (proposed subsections 139-135(3)-(5)):
- to the extent that doing so would be inconsistent with certain other court orders (namely, proceeds of crime orders such as forfeiture orders and restraining orders and superannuation orders relating to Commonwealth employee corruption offences)
- if the superannuation interest has become subject to a payment split and the process under the SIS Regulations for the superannuation provider to give effect to that split has not been completed yet or
- if a payment flag for family law purposes is operating on the superannuation interest.
The Explanatory Memorandum (pp. 22-24) provides:
These rules ensure superannuation providers have clear direction on how to reconcile different directives affecting the perpetrator’s superannuation interest. A superannuation provider will still have to comply with the release authority to the extent that they can. For example, a proceeds of crime order may only cover part of the perpetrator’s superannuation interest.
…
Where a superannuation provider advises the Commissioner that they are not required to comply with the release authority…, this would not preclude the Commissioner from issuing another release authority to the superannuation provider at a later time. For example, the Commissioner could issue a release authority to the superannuation provider at a point where it is expected that the superannuation provider would have completed the process for giving effect to a payment split.
Proposed section 139-45 sets out circumstances in which the superannuation provider must notify the Commissioner, including when they have made the payment to the Commissioner, when they are not required to comply with the release authority, and when they are not required to pay the amount.
The Commissioner must notify the perpetrator and the victim in writing as soon as practicable after:
- the total amount paid to the Commissioner under release authorities issued under proposed subsection 139-115(1) reaches the amount specified in the order or
- the Commissioner is satisfied, under proposed subparagraph 139-120(b)(iii), that issuing further release authorities will not increase the total amount released.
The Commissioner must then pay the amount released to the victim (proposed section 139‑160). If the sum of the amounts paid by the Commissioner under section 139-160 exceeds the amount of unpaid compensation to which the victim is entitled under the order, then the excess: is payable by the victim to the perpetrator; is a debt due by the victim to the perpetrator; and may be recovered by action in a court of competent jurisdiction by the perpetrator (proposed section 139-165).
In its submission to the 2023 Treasury Discussion Paper (p. 4), The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Limited questioned what would happen in the event a conviction subsequently is overturned on appeal (for example, where new evidence is obtained) and whether the payment would then need to be recovered and returned to the member’s superannuation fund. Proposed section 139-155 provides that where the Commissioner issues a release order based on a perpetrator contribution release order that results in an acquisition of property on other than just terms, then the Commonwealth may be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the perpetrator.
Allowing compensation debts to survive bankruptcy
Item 5 amends section 153 of the Bankruptcy Act, which sets out the effects when bankruptcy is discharged, and the individual is released from their debts.
The amendments make clear that the discharge of an individual from a bankruptcy does not extinguish any outstanding compensation debts owed by the perpetrator to a victim in relation to an order referred to in proposed paragraph 139-55(1)(b) of the TAA (regardless of whether or not the victim has applied for such an order). Therefore, the perpetrator must have a criminal conviction or have been found guilty of a specified child abuse offence for the compensation debts to survive. As noted by the Explanatory Memorandum (pp. 28-29), ‘The amendments may be considered to apply retrospectively in the sense that they may apply to existing compensation debts and in respect of convictions or findings of guilt made prior to commencement.’