Koffels News

Earlier this year, the Albanese government introduced legislation to parliament to prevent individuals from using superannuation as a vehicle to shield assets from creditors, particularly where civil liability has arisen or is reasonably anticipated.

At its core, the reform targets the strategic diversion of wealth into superannuation—often through large or irregular contributions—intended to defeat compensation claims. It does so by expanding the circumstances in which such funds may be accessed, clawed back, or otherwise considered in insolvency and enforcement proceedings. In effect, the reform does not dismantle the protective framework of superannuation, but recalibrates it, ensuring that its safeguards cannot be leveraged to frustrate the enforcement of legal judgments, including those arising from serious wrongdoing such as child abuse. The reform also amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 so compensation debts tied to child sexual abuse convictions or findings of guilt can survive an offender’s bankruptcy, closing off another avenue that could otherwise frustrate payment.

Now enacted as the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Act 2026, the reform forms part of a broader insolvency reform agenda. Introduced on 25 March 2026, it passed both Houses of Parliament on 14 May 2026, received Royal Assent on 20 May 2026, and commenced the following day. The amendments carry some retrospective effect, extending to compensation orders that already existed before commencement. The reform followed a brief period of public consultation on an earlier exposure draft, during which the Law Council of Australia raised concerns about the compressed 18-day consultation window, while still supporting the underlying policy intent.

While the initial scope of the reform may seem narrow, it takes on a significance that extends far beyond its technical framing – capturing a structural imbalance inherent in civil litigation. For decades now, the architecture of institutional child abuse litigation has been undergoing subtle, yet highly consequential, change. Questions of liability are constantly being reframed and reassessed, and as a result, courts are increasingly being asked who can be held liable, on what basis, and under what conditions. In this context, highly impactful decisions have emerged, bringing with them a meaningful expansion of the law. Yet, as the law has grown more sophisticated in attributing liability, structural limitations have persisted, beleaguering the way legal recognition is converted into recoverable compensation.

The problem is not merely that harm has occurred, or that liability is difficult to establish. It is that even when both are proven, the legal system has, at times, struggled to ensure its remedies can be realised. Survivors who navigate the legal process successfully, often after prolonged and exacting proceedings, may still face a hollow victory. Defendants can appear impecunious in the conventional sense while retaining substantial wealth in superannuation vehicles that remain insulated from creditor claims. The result is a disjunction between legal responsibility and financial consequence, where liability exists in principle but is attenuated in practice.

This dynamic is not incidental. Superannuation occupies a distinct position within the legal landscape, shaped by its dual character as both a private asset and a vehicle of public policy. Its protection has long been justified by the imperative of ensuring financial security in retirement, a goal with clear social utility. Yet, in insulating these assets from external claims, the law has inadvertently created conditions in which liability can be structurally diluted. Wealth is preserved, but accountability is deferred.

The reform reflects a growing unwillingness to accept that outcome as an inevitable feature of the system. By targeting the strategic use of superannuation to defeat creditor claims, the law recalibrates the balance between protection and accountability. Superannuation, once treated as categorically insulated, is repositioned as conditionally accessible – its protection no longer absolute, but contingent upon its use in good faith.

The implications of this shift become more pronounced when situated alongside recent judicial decisions. The High Court’s decision in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (the full judgment is available from the High Court) reflects an evolving willingness to expand the scope of institutional responsibility, recognising that non-delegable duties may extend to intentional wrongdoing. In doing so, it reframes the boundaries of liability, bringing within reach conduct that had previously resisted such characterisation.

Yet, even as decisions of this kind broaden the avenues through which claims can be brought, they do not, of themselves, resolve the question of enforcement. Liability, no matter how expansively conceived, remains contingent upon the existence of assets capable of satisfying a judgment. Here, the superannuation reform assumes its broader significance. It does not alter the principles by which responsibility is determined, but rather the conditions under which that responsibility can be made effective.

Framed this way, the reform operates not as an isolated intervention, but as part of a wider evolution in how justice is administered. It forces a shift in the way that the law deals with harm – from passively recognising it to actively enforcing it. This distinction is subtle, because a system predicated on the former risks being purely symbolic – its authority grounded more in declaration than in consequence.

The behavioural effects of such a shift are likely to be equally significant. Where asset protection strategies have historically enabled defendants to manage or minimise exposure, eroding those protections alters the strategic landscape. The capacity to shield wealth through superannuation becomes uncertain, if not untenable. In turn, the incentives that shape litigation – whether to settle, contest, or defer – are reconsidered. Plaintiffs, equipped with a more credible pathway to recovery, occupy a strengthened position, and defendants, confronted with the prospect of enforceable liability, may be less inclined to rely on structural protections that no longer guarantee insulation.

This dynamic extends beyond individual claims and shapes the broader accountability ecosystem. Child abuse litigation has long operated at the intersection of individual wrongdoing and institutional responsibility. Where individuals are rendered effectively judgment-proof, institutions may bear a disproportionate share of financial liability, irrespective of their relative culpability. By restoring the enforceability of claims against individuals, the reform contributes to a more coherent alignment between responsibility and consequence across the system.

What seems to be emerging is a broader jurisprudential trend – one that is increasingly attentive to the ways in which legal structures interact with the realities of wealth. Formal asset arrangements, whether in the form of superannuation, trusts, or corporate vehicles, are no longer treated as impermeable boundaries. Instead, they are subject to a more rigorous one that asks whether their operation aligns with, or undermines, the substantive objectives of the law.

In the context of child abuse litigation, this shift carries particular weight. If recent developments have expanded the scope of who can be held responsible, the reform ensures that responsibility cannot be neutralised through the architecture of asset protection. Effectively, justice is moving away from a model satisfied with recognition and toward one that insists on realisation.

Frequently Asked Questions

This information is general and does not constitute legal advice. If you have an existing compensation order and want to know whether this reform applies to your circumstances, please contact us.