Most people see superannuation as the quiet little workhorse. You put a bit away, week in and week out, and one day you retire to live with some dignity. It’s not meant to be a hiding spot or a loophole. And it’s certainly not meant to be a shelter for people trying to wriggle out of responsibility after the most serious wrongdoing. That’s why the government’s move to legislate against the superannuation loopholes that let convicted child abuse offenders put money in superannuation to avoid paying compensation to victim-survivors is sensible.
Super is for retirement, not for running away
When superannuation becomes a shield against justice, it turns a system designed for security into something corrosive. It undermines confidence in the system for everyone, and it adds another layer of harm for people who’ve already been through far too much.
If a person has offended against children, been convicted, and a compensation order has been made, the moral position is plain: they should not be allowed to hide behind a superannuation loophole to protect their nest egg while the victim is left chasing what they are owed.
What to like about the proposed approach
The proposal is measured and deliberate. It is not a licence to raid a person’s entire super balance without process. It is directed only at additional contributions, such as extra super payments or salary-sacrificed amounts, made by an offender, and it is triggered only where a compensation order remains unpaid after a reasonable period. That limitation matters.
A waiting period is basically the law saying, “You’ve had time to do the right thing. If you haven’t, the victim can ask the court to step in.” There shouldn’t ever be a superannuation loophole available in these circumstances.
That’s not arbitrary punishment. That’s the consequence for refusing to meet an obligation already set by the justice system. And I also think it’s sensible that there’s a way for victims to find out whether there’s actually any eligible super worth pursuing.
One of the cruellest things about compensation orders is how often they can become a victory only on paper. They are expensive to enforce, difficult to trace, and exhausting to chase. If the system can reduce that burden and make the process workable, that’s a real step forward.
Closing the “bankruptcy escape hatch” is just as important
I don’t have a problem with bankruptcy laws that give people a chance to rebuild when they’ve fallen on hard times. That’s humane and sensible.
But compensation owed to victims of child sexual abuse sits in a different category. It is not a credit card bill or a business deal gone wrong. Instead, it’s a court-ordered recognition of harm and shouldn’t be something that can be wiped away by a legal technicality.
Making sure these compensation debts survive bankruptcy is another way of saying what should already be obvious: you don’t get to erase responsibility for this kind of wrongdoing by pushing papers around.
It’s court-supervised, and that’s the right safeguard
I think it’s important that the process runs through the courts. A court order requirement means there’s oversight, and evidence will be properly addressed, and safeguards can be applied. It also means there’s a proper legal test, not a backroom administrative decision.
Compensation won’t undo what’s been done. But it can matter on a number of levels: financially, practically, psychologically. It can help pay for care, and it can also support stability. It can also provide a tangible sense that the system recognised the harm and required something in return.
When offenders are allowed to avoid paying, it’s not just a financial failure. It’s a message failure. It sends the message that the system can be gamed, and that accountability is optional for anyone savvy enough to work the angles. That’s not the message our laws should ever send.
This reform also respects the hard work of survivors
The other thing worth acknowledging is that reforms like this don’t just appear out of thin air. They happen because survivors and advocates keep pushing for them to make the system better than it was when they first needed it and saw it in action.
I see this kind of change as part of a broader cultural shift: a willingness to stop treating these cases as something we talk about solemnly and then move on from. It’s about addressing practical ways to stop offenders from avoiding consequences.
Getting the details right matters, but the direction is right
Of course, legislation like this needs careful drafting. Definitions matter. The scope matters. The safeguards matter. The interaction with other legal processes matters. And consultation is the right way to pressure-test the design.
But on the core question: should convicted child abuse offenders be able to hide money in superannuation using a superannuation loophole to avoid paying court-ordered compensation? Everyone’s answer is no.
Superannuation is for retirement. Compensation orders are for accountability and recognition of harm. The law should not allow the first to be used to defeat the second. Because some things are bigger than clever structuring and technical protections, and this is one of them.
There is, of course, plenty to know that is not covered here, and as the usual legal disclaimer goes, the information here is of a general nature because legal advice always depends on your circumstances.
Contact
You can call us at (03) 9969 7077 or via email at info@leonardwelch.au.
Leonard & Welch – the original (and the best) super lawyers!
📞 Call (03) 9969 7077
💼 No Win No Fee
