The Lander & Rogers Superannuation Alert is a brief overview of new developments in the superannuation industry.
|Legislative update||Further budget reforms Bill passed||Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017|| |
On 15 June 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the Senate without amendment and now awaits Royal Assent.
The Bill amends the key budget reform Act (Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Act 2016) and associated legislation, specifically to make amendments to the:
|Legislative update||ASIC's supervisory cost recovery levy legislation passed||ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017|| |
On 15 June 2017, the Senate passed, without amendment, the following three Bills that propose to "enable the recovery of the regulatory costs of ASIC" by imposing a levy on ASIC regulated persons.
The Bills now await Royal Assent.
|ALRC||ALRC Report 131||Elder Abuse — A National Legal Response|| |
On 14 June 2017, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its report into current Australian "laws and frameworks which seek to safeguard and protect older persons from misuse or abuse by formal and informal carers, supporters, representatives and others".
The ALRC has made 43 recommendations for law reform and in particular, proposes that the provisions relating to death benefit nominations in SIS be amended to clarify:
|ATO||Budget reform additional guidance||Removal of election to treat super income streams as lump sums New transfer balance cap - child death benefit recipients|| |
The ATO has updated its website to include the following information guides:
|Case law update||TPD complaint||Carette v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal  FCA 640|| |
On 29 May 2017, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in the matter of Carrette v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal  FCA 640. In this matter, the Applicant appealed from a decision of the SCT which affirmed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (Trustee) to deny the Applicant's claim for a TPD benefit. The Federal Court held that the SCT failed "to engage with the critical parts of actual material that was before the Trustee and that was before the Tribunal" which indicated that the Applicant's current condition was a separate and independent condition not related to the Applicant's earlier condition. The matter has been remitted to the SCT for re-hearing.
|Case law update||TPD complaint||Gomez v Board of Trustees of the State Public Superannuation Scheme  QSC 98|| |
On 29 May 2017, the Supreme Court of Queensland handed down its decision in the matter of Gomez v Board of Trustees of the State Public Superannuation Scheme  QSC 98. In this case, the Plaintiff claimed the payment of a TPD benefit from the Board of Trustees of the State Public Superannuation Scheme (Trustee).
The claim was initially refused by a delegate of the Trustee. The Plaintiff sought a review of that decision, but the initial decision was affirmed by the Trustee. The Plaintiff sought a further review on the basis of additional material. A senior board delegate of the Trustee again affirmed the Trustee's initial decision to refuse to grant the Plaintiff's claim.
The Supreme Court held that the additional material provided by the Plaintiff "put forward sufficient material to show there was a case to be investigated further" and that the Trustee failed to properly reconsider the claim in light of the additional material.
All information on this site is of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as, nor to be a substitute for, specific legal professional advice. No responsibility for the loss occasioned to any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any material published can be accepted.