Download full submission as PDF
Background
Elder abuse is both prevalent and under-recognised within Australia. Annually, approximately one in six (14.8%) older Australians experience some form of elder abuse. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) in 2021i found that psychological abuse is the most common form, followed by financial abuse – a trend that mirrors the case data of Seniors Rights Victoria. The AIFS survey also found that around 53% of perpetrators of elder abuse were family members, including current or former partners, with perpetration by family members highest in cases of financial abuse (64%). These forms of mistreatment frequently intersect, with coercive and controlling behaviours underpinning many instances of abuse.
The relational dynamics of elder abuse, particularly parent and adult-child relationships, mean that such abuse is significantly underreported and often overlooked. The same AIFS study found that only 36% of older Australians who experienced abuse sought help or advice from a third party, such as a family member, friend, or professional. This figure falls further to 30% in cases involving financial abuse.
Consequently, only a limited number of elder abuse cases are reflected in formal systems through police reports, criminal charges, or court determinations. Misidentification is also a serious and recurring issue, often driven by ageist assumptions regarding capacity or a reluctance to implicate family members. In some instances, this results in victim-survivors being incorrectly identified as perpetrators, further compounding harm and limiting access to justice. The frequent misuse of legal systems by perpetrators reinforces that, reliance on formal legal findings alone, is insufficient and risks excluding many victim-survivors from protection.
Within this context, superannuation death benefits can act as a driver of elder abuse. A sense of financial entitlement, possibly exacerbated by ageist beliefs, can fuel dependency, coercive control, and create conditions in which older individuals may be pressured or manipulated into making or maintaining binding death benefit nominations that do not reflect their preferences.
Accordingly, this submission strongly supports an approach in which the existence of violence, coercion, or abuse rather than the formal characterisation of the relationship is the central consideration. In practice, this means all forms of domestic and family violence, whether perpetrated within an intimate relationship or by another family member or trusted person, is included in the decision of super death benefit allocations.
Additionally, greater attention must be given to ensuring that binding nominations and related agreements are made with the full, informed, and voluntary consent of the older person. This includes recognising the role of digital exclusion, cognitive vulnerability, age discrimination and potential systems abuse, and coercive control in undermining genuine consent.
With these considerations in mind, this submission supports a variation of Option 1 proposed in the consultation paper, alongside the codification of the forfeiture rule. The proposed variation is set out in detail below.