The Lander & Rogers Superannuation Alert is a brief overview of new developments in the superannuation industry.
- On 15 September 2016, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2016 (No.1) was registered. This instrument amends the customer identification provisions in Chapter 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2007 (No.1). According to the Explanatory Statement, the amendments to Chapter 4:
- amend the 'collection of customer identification information to allow information to be collected from sources other than the customer'. This is achieved by replacing the word 'from' with the word 'about' in Part 4.2.3; and
- amend the electronic safe harbour provisions for customers so that verification of an individual's residential address is now a discretionary rather than mandatory component under Part 4.2.13(2).
- On 23 September 2016, the ASIC Corporations (Amendment and Repeal) Instrument 2016/895 was registered. This instrument reissues the relief provided under ASIC Class Order [CO 03/911] which, according to the Explanatory Statement, 'exempts bodies entitled to the self-dealing exemption under subsection 766C(4) of the [Corporations] Act from the requirement to hold an AFS licence when providing general product advice in offer documents to wholesale clients'. ASIC Class Order [CO 03/911] was 'due to sunset on 1 April 2017', and this instrument ensures that the relief remains available.
- On 29 September 2016, the ASIC Corporations (Amendment and Repeal) Instrument 2016/914 was registered. This instrument repeals Class Order [CO 98/106]: Financial reports of superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and pooled superannuation trusts. According to the Explanatory Statement, the Class Order was repealed because ASIC considered it was 'no longer necessary, useful or effective'. These changes were previously considered by ASIC's Consultation Paper 267.
- On 30 September 2016, the Court of Appeal of the Queensland Supreme Court handed down its decision in Edington v Board of Trustees of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme  QCA 247. This case has been the subject of lengthy litigation, commencing after the respondent declined a TPD claim from the appellant pursuant to the terms of his insurance on the basis that the appellant's disablement (namely schizophrenia) was related to 'a pre-existing medical condition which should reasonably have been disclosed' by the appellant through lodging a personal medical statement. When the appellant exhausted his remedies under the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), he commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, but his case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal identified what it considered to be the relevant issues from the appellant's notice of appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of appeal.