22-year-old Molly Wilkes had been subjected to extreme emotional, sexual, physical, and financial abuse throughout the course of her relationship. Third, tragically, she died by suicide in Las Vegas on July 28, 2022. In a cruel turn of fate, her now-industry-fund superannuation account with industry fund HESTA was paid out to her then-husband. He had been the perpetrator of her abuse, and this tragic outcome occurred because she lacked a binding death nomination or a will. Unfortunately, this case highlights an alarming legal loophole. It would allow abusers to inherit their victims’ financial assets, sparking immediate outcries to change the law.
Wilkes went through a toxic relationship, one that quickly devolved into serious threats and even more serious control from her then–husband. In the weeks leading up to her death, she had made preparations to leave him, signaling her desire to escape the turmoil. As she prepared to leave, the moral blackmailing only increased in fervor. Julie Adams, Wilkes’ mother, has been vocal about the injustice surrounding her daughter’s death and the subsequent payout of her superannuation.
Adams stated, “My beautiful, feisty and kind 22-year-old daughter, Molly Jane Wilkes, died from domestic violence-related suicide.” She added that once her daughter’s husband discovered her plans to leave, “his emotional torture and manipulation of her escalated.” It was the tragic consequences of this abuse that drove Wilkes to unfortunately pursue one of his only avenues of escape through tragic means.
The Impact of Superannuation Laws
Since Molly never created a will, her estate will go through intestacy laws. She was unsuccessful in arranging a binding death nomination for her superannuation fund. Instead, she had made her mom a non-binding beneficiary. This argument came back to bite HESTA trustees as they ultimately chose to pay a death benefit to Wilkes’ then-spouse. While Adams sparked outrage about racist county lines, he highlighted a lack of accountability under today’s laws. These laws, unfortunately, allow abusers to gain control over their victims’ financial assets.
“This shocking legal loophole can force the payment of a victim’s super to a partner who terrorised them while they were alive,” said Adams. She stresses that situations like this require urgent change in order to stop abusers from profiting off their victims’ deaths.
As one consumer group recently revealed, 36% of Australians with superannuation said they had not completed a death benefit nomination. The mean superannuation balance plus insurance benefits combined was just over $101,000, just over half the median. Alarmingly, only one in four Australians reported establishing a binding nomination to ensure that funds would reach their intended recipients. This dangerous lack of awareness almost took Molly Wilkes’ life.
Adams went into detail about the contradictions in the superannuation industry. Certain funds permit the fund’s unit holders to create a non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination. Others only allow non-lapsing, “she said.” There is no consistency or uniformity across the industry. These differences make it a lot harder on the people. They find it difficult to know how to safeguard their superannuation from being misappropriated by ex partners in the future.
Advocating for Change
Adams has a simple, but urgent meminta, change in superannuation laws. He is advocating for a specific type of “forfeiture rule” to be applied to death benefits in instances of domestic violence or financial abuse. Third, she suggested a “change of circumstances rule.” This rule would provide super funds the authority to override or annul binding nominations in situations of economic abuse or other domestic violence.
Fair law reform with a sense of urgency is required to address this injustice. As the two parties that control government at the national level promised to come together in support of reform earlier this year, Adams continued. Her advocacy continues to raise awareness of this urgent need for legislative change. Together, these changes will better protect victims and help prevent their financial assets from ending up in the hands of their abusers.
Adams brought attention to a key point. Under existing laws, superannuation fund trustees do not have to verify that a binding death benefit nomination is made voluntarily, at arm’s length and free from coercion or duress. “The requisite form simply must be completed and witnessed correctly and submitted to the trustee,” she explained. Without this kind of oversight, there is plenty of room for machination from a violent or controlling spouse.
As the consciousness around these issues awaken, advocates like Adams are continuing to push the movement forward. They battled hard to lobby for legislative changes that will ensure abusers no longer receive death benefits. Misha Schubert, another advocate in this area, echoed Adams’ sentiments by stating, “It’s a glaring injustice that under the current law, perpetrators of family violence can inherit by default the super of a partner they abused.”
The Path Forward
Her story, like Molly Wilkes’ who we wrote about last week, is a chilling reminder of the dangerous precarity that domestic violence victims live in. Her heartbreaking ordeal sheds light on the immediate reforms required around how superannuation funds process death benefits and nominations.
Adams has not only been seeking personal justice but working on systemic changes that would make sure future victims are protected from similar injustices. The amendments she has introduced so far would make an enormous positive difference for domestic violence survivors and their families.
“Superannuation often does not form part of a person’s estate,” she noted, emphasizing the complexities involved in managing these assets posthumously.
