Warning: This story contains details of domestic violence and suicide.<\/p>\n
Molly Wilkes was just 22 years old when she took her own life in the US.<\/p>\n
Before her death, Molly spoke to her mother Julie Adams frequently over the phone about the abuse she experienced.<\/p>\n
If you or anyone you know needs help:Suicide Call Back Service<\/a> on 1300 659 467Lifeline<\/a> on 13 11 14Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander crisis support line 13YARN<\/a>\u00a0on 13 92 76Kids Helpline<\/a> on 1800 551 800Beyond Blue<\/a> on 1300 224 636Headspace<\/a> on 1800 650 890ReachOut<\/a> at au.reachout.com<\/a>MensLine Australia<\/a> on 1300 789 978QLife 1800 184 527<\/a><\/p>\n “My beautiful, feisty and kind 22-year-old daughter, Molly Jane Wilkes, died from domestic violence-related suicide,” Julie wrote in submission to a federal inquiry into how the tax and super systems were used by perpetrators of financial abuse.<\/a><\/p>\n “During the relationship, Molly experienced severe emotional, sexual, physical and financial abuse.<\/p>\n “Molly had tried to leave the perpetrator of her abuse six times since they married in January 2021. The last three times were in the last five months of her life.”<\/p>\n In her submission, Ms Adams recounted how, in the week before her death, Molly packed her bags and was ready to leave the perpetrator of her abuse.<\/p>\n Millions of people will not have say in who inherits their super<\/a><\/p>\n At least 6.5 million Australians will have no say in who inherits their superannuation, according to new research from Super Consumers Australia.\u00a0<\/p>\n “However, once he found out about her plans, his emotional torture and manipulation of her escalated,” she wrote.<\/p>\n “Exhausted, and completely isolated in a foreign country, she did not have the energy to leave.”<\/p>\n Molly killed herself in their home in Las Vegas on July 28, 2022.<\/p>\n Julie Adams wrote in the submission that, in the last weeks of Molly’s life, she endured death threats from the perpetrator of the abuse, her then-husband.<\/p>\n Financial abuse no barrier to super payout<\/p>\n Ms Adams told the inquiry there were numerous messages of financial abuse directed at Molly, including requests for her to ask her mother for money, wanting to access her inheritance from her grandmother.<\/p>\n Molly had a superannuation account with industry fund HESTA, did not have a binding death nomination, and died without a will \u2014 although she did have Ms Adams, her mother, listed as her super beneficiary through a non-binding nomination.<\/p>\n Family and domestic violence support services:<\/p>\n If you need help immediately, call emergency services on triple-0.<\/p>\n “Under The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) and the HESTA Trust Deed, the only eligible superannuation dependent is the perpetrator of Molly’s abuse, her husband,” Ms Adams said.<\/p>\n “Despite my many attempts to change this outcome, the HESTA trustees had no option but to pay out Molly’s superannuation and death benefit to her abuser.<\/p>\n “This they did in December 2023.”<\/p>\n The fund involved, HESTA, said it was actively campaigning to have the laws changed to prevent this kind of situation continuing to occur.<\/p>\n “We believe the current laws surrounding death benefits fail to sufficiently protect victims of family violence and urgent reform is needed,” a spokesperson told ABC News.<\/p>\n “HESTA welcomes the government’s pre-election commitment to take action on death benefit laws so that perpetrators of family violence cannot benefit financially from their crimes.<\/p>\n HESTA said it supported the Super Members Council’s (SMC) submission to the inquiry, which called for law reforms to give trustees the ability to not pay a death benefit to a beneficiary where there is evidence of abuse.<\/p>\n The SMC noted in its submission to last year’s bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee in Relation to Financial Abuse that trustees would need to be presented with sufficient evidence of the abuse to a standard held appropriate by an independent third party, such as an Australian court.<\/p>\n SMC CEO Misha Schubert said change was urgently needed.<\/p>\n “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,” she said.<\/p>\n “This shocking legal loophole can force the payment of a victim’s super to a partner who terrorised them while they were alive.<\/p>\n “Urgent law reform is needed to fix this. Both major parties of government pledged their support for reform earlier this year.”<\/p>\n Loading…Disputing a death benefit nomination can be difficult<\/p>\n As ABC News reported this week, Super Consumers Australia research has shown at least 6.5 million Australians will not have a say on who inherits their superannuation<\/a>.<\/p>\n Loading…<\/p>\n The consumer group found that 36 per cent of Australians with super that it surveyed reported that they had not made a death benefit nomination <\/a>despite this group having an average of $101,000 in super, plus insurance benefits.<\/p>\n Only a quarter reported that they had made a “binding death benefit nomination” ensuring the money would go to who it was intended it for.<\/p>\n Ms Adams wrote in her submission there was increasing awareness over the incidence of domestic violence-related suicide, but that perpetrators of abuse continue to be able to access the superannuation benefits and life insurance proceeds of their victims.<\/p>\n Who can inherit your superannuation?<\/a><\/p>\n Consumers are being urged to make ‘binding’ death benefit nominations to avoid lengthy legal disputes between family members and loved ones.<\/p>\n She said while the SIS (Superannuation Industry Supervision) legislation applied nationally, every fund had its own bespoke rules that governed how the trusts were operated and, in turn, the discretions afforded to the trustee.<\/p>\n “Some funds allow the members to prepare a non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination. Others only allow non-lapsing,” she said.<\/p>\n “Some funds provide they will only pay to certain dependents; others stipulate they will distribute the death benefits to a legal personal representative on death of a member. There is no consistency or uniformity across the industry.<\/p>\n “Furthermore, there are no requirements for a trustee of a superannuation fund to ensure that a binding death benefit nomination is made voluntarily and without coercion or duress. The requisite form simply must be completed and witnessed correctly and submitted to the trustee.”<\/p>\n She said, like a will, a binding death benefit nomination only came into effect after the death of a member and “disproving that it was validly made would be difficult after the fact”.<\/p>\n Calls for binding nominations to be ‘overridden’ in abuse cases<\/p>\n Ms Adams said this risk could be mitigated if there were changes to the SIS Act, and regulations that introduced “more robust witnessing requirements for making, amending and revoking binding death benefit nominations”.<\/p>\n