Family Law (Superannuation) (Methods and Factors for Valuing Particular Superannuation Interests) Approval 2025

The instrument operates through a small set of core statutory concepts that are defined in, or derive their meaning from, the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations. The instrument explicitly imports terms from those sources (s 4). Key concepts to hold in mind are the following.

Superannuation interest: a statutory concept used in Part VIIIB/VIIIC of the Family Law Act and in the Regulations; the instrument approves valuation methods that apply to particular superannuation interests identified in its Schedule (s 5(1)). The instrument does not redefine the term; it relies on the Act/Regulations definitions listed in s 4.

Growth phase and payment phase: the Regulations and Act distinguish between interests in growth phase and those in payment phase. The instrument allows Schedule provisions to be expressed as applying to either phase or to both. The phase a superannuation interest is in will determine which regulatory subsection the approved method supports , subsection 62(1) (growth) and/or subsection 70(1) (payment) of the Regulations (s 5(2)).

Gross value: the approved methods or factors in the Schedule are to be used to determine the gross value of the superannuation interest (s 5(1)). The instrument makes no separate rule about netting or adjustments; the statutory purpose in the Regulations is to use gross value together with transition factors to determine payout entitlements.

Transition factor: for converting gross value into the amount payable to the non-member spouse under the Regulations, the instrument either approves a transition factor set out in the Schedule (or methods for calculating it), or it supplies a default transition factor of 1 where the Schedule does not specify (s 6(2)). The transition factor is approved for the purposes of subsection 79(1) of the Regulations (s 6(2)).

Operative time and payment split: the instrument operates in the statutory space where operative time, payment splits and operative dates determine how values are calculated for splitting. Definitions for operative time and payment split are imported from the Act/Regulations (s 4) and are relevant when applying Schedule methods.

2001 Regulations reference: where the instrument refers to the 2001 Regulations, it fixes that reference to the version as in force on 31 March 2025 rather than to any subsequent amendments (s 7(1)). The instrument states that this is a contrary intention to certain interpretation Act provisions (s 7(2)), so users should treat citations to the 2001 Regulations as time‑fixed as at that date.

Saving for old PCSS arrangements: although the old approval instrument is repealed, Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the old approval instrument, as in force on 28 September 2023, continues to apply for agreements or orders under Part VIIIB/VIIIC of the Act made on or before 28 September 2023 that relate to superannuation interests in the PCSS (s 9(1)-(2)). The instrument expressly preserves the effect of regulation 5 of the old approval instrument for these matters.

Approval and regulatory purpose: the approvals are expressly for the purposes of the listed subsections of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations (s 5(2); s 6(2)). The instrument therefore functions as delegated legislative approval for valuation methodology that feeds directly into entitlements under the family-law superannuation-splitting regime.

Practically, these concepts map to decision points for practitioners: identify the superannuation interest and its phase; locate the Schedule provision that applies; apply the approved method to determine gross value; determine whether the Schedule specifies a transition factor or apply the default factor of 1; and, where relevant, apply the preserved old approval method for PCSS agreements/orders governed by the saving clause (ss 4-6, 9).

This instrument changes the legal authorisation framework for valuation and conversion calculations that sit at the interface of superannuation interests and family-law property settlement mechanisms. The principal categories of persons and entities affected are as follows, with references to the relevant provisions.

Non-member spouses and member spouses: the amount a non-member spouse is entitled to be paid in relation to a superannuation interest is derived from the gross value and the transition factor (s 6). Therefore the instrument affects the calculation basis for what a non-member spouse receives after a payment split, and likewise it affects the member spouse whose superannuation interest is being valued and from which a split may be calculated (ss 5-6).

Trustees and superannuation plans: trustees of eligible superannuation plans will be required to apply or accept valuation methods and factors used in family-law splitting contexts where those methods are approved by this instrument and specified in the Schedule (s 5(1)). Trustees may need to instruct or accept actuarial or valuation reports that follow the approved methods in order to implement a payment split under Part VIIIB/VIIIC of the Act.

Family law practitioners and valuers: lawyers, accountants and actuaries preparing valuations for family-law proceedings must identify and use the Schedule-approved methods or factors to determine gross value (s 5(1)) and the transition factor (s 6). If the Schedule specifies methods for determining the transition factor, those methods are approved (s 6(2)(a)). Where the Schedule is silent, the default transition factor of 1 applies (s 6(2)(b)), which simplifies conversion but may not reflect all plan features.

Courts and registrars: courts and registrars supervising or approving consent orders, or resolving disputes over superannuation splitting, will apply the Regulations and the Act, and will treat valuation methods and transition factors approved by this instrument as the statutory baseline for calculating gross value and payable amounts (s 5(2); s 6(2)). The instrument therefore places a statutory compass point courts should use when addressing valuation methodology linked to Schedule provisions.

Parties to older agreements or orders in relation to the PCSS: a narrow class of parties whose agreements or court orders were made under Part VIIIB or VIIIC on or before 28 September 2023 in relation to PCSS interests retain the applicability of Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old approval instrument as in force on that date, despite the repeal of the old instrument (s 9(1)-(2)). These parties and trustees managing PCSS interests must apply the preserved method for gross-value determination for those specific historic instruments.

Regulatory agencies and administrators: the Regulations are expressly engaged (ss 5(2) and 6(2)), and the instrument refers to the Family Law Act provisions by note (s 3). Entities administering family-law property settlements and superannuation-splitting procedures therefore must align their administrative forms and processes to the approved methods and the 2001 Regulations reference point where relevant (s 7).

Who pays and who receives: the instrument itself does not create new monetary obligations beyond giving statutory approval to calculation methods. Practically, the immediate economic incidence is on liable superannuation interests and the parties entitled to payment splits: the member spouse’s fund (or trustee) funds will be the source of payment, while the non-member spouse is the recipient. The instrument changes the calculation rule by approving methods and transition factors (ss 5-6).

Notice and administrative burden: affected trustees, valuers and practitioners must consult the Schedule to identify which approved methods/factors apply to particular interests. Where the Schedule prescribes a method or transition-factor method, parties must adopt them (s 5(1); s 6(2)(a)). Where the Schedule is silent as to transition factor, parties must apply the default factor of 1 (s 6(2)(b)). The saving in s 9 affects a narrowly defined group whose documents pre-date 29 September 2023.

In summary, the instrument allocates decision rules for valuation and conversion of superannuation interests in family-law splitting contexts, and it affects non-member spouses, member spouses, trustees, valuers, courts and administrators by changing the approved methodological baseline (ss 4-9).

The instrument creates statutory approvals rather than freestanding duties; however, those approvals translate into practical duties under the Family Law Act and Regulations when valuing superannuation interests and calculating payments following a split. The following are the operative duties, entitlements and decision rules anchored in the instrument.

Duty to use approved methods to determine gross value: where a Schedule provision specifies methods or factors that apply to a superannuation interest, those methods or factors are approved for determining the gross value of that interest (s 5(1)). For purposes of the Regulations, practitioners and valuers must therefore apply the Schedule-approved methods when preparing valuations intended to support a payment split under Part VIIIB/VIIIC of the Act. The instrument ties the approval to specific regulatory subsections depending on whether the Schedule provision applies expressly to growth phase, payment phase, or both (s 5(2)).

Duty/right concerning transition factor: for superannuation interests that have approved methods under s 5, the instrument approves for the purposes of subsection 79(1) of the Regulations either the transition factor specified in a Schedule provision, or the Schedule methods that determine the transition factor (s 6(2)(a)). Where the Schedule is silent, the instrument approves a transition factor of 1 (s 6(2)(b)). Practitioners therefore have a duty to identify whether a Schedule provision supplies a transition factor or methods for it; if not, the legal entitlement calculation must use factor 1. This converts gross value into the payable amount for the non-member spouse under the Regulations.

Right to rely on the approved methods and factors: courts, trustees and practitioners may rely on the statutory approval when determining gross values and payable amounts. The instrument’s approval carries legal force for the purposes cited (s 5(2); s 6(2)). That reduces a potential source of legal uncertainty about whether a particular method has statutory backing; where the Schedule provides the method, it is an approved statutory method.

Right and duty concerning phase specification: the Schedule-provision text controls whether the approval is limited to growth-phase interests, payment-phase interests, or both. Where a Schedule provision is expressly limited to one phase, the approval is only for that regulatory subsection (s 5(2)). Practitioners therefore have a duty to determine the phase of a superannuation interest before applying a Schedule method.

Duty arising from definitions: the instrument imports definitions from the Act and Regulations (s 4). Duties to apply approved methods must therefore be read in light of statutory meanings of terms such as eligible superannuation plan, growth phase, payment phase, member spouse, operative time, payment split, superannuation interest and trustee. Practitioners must therefore treat those definitions as operational inputs to the duty to apply the Schedule methods.

Saving duty for PCSS historic agreements: if there is an agreement or court order made under Part VIIIB or VIIIC on or before 28 September 2023 relating to a PCSS interest, the duty to use Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old approval instrument as in force on that date continues, despite repeal of the old instrument (s 9(2)). The effect is that parties and trustees dealing with historic PCSS splits must continue to apply the preserved method for gross-value calculation for these matters.

Duty regarding interpretative anchoring: where the instrument references the 2001 Regulations, that reference is to the 2001 Regulations as in force on 31 March 2025 (s 7(1)). This creates an obligation for decision-makers to treat such references as fixed in time rather than variable with subsequent amendments, because the instrument expresses a contrary intention to certain interpretative provisions (s 7(2)).

Limits on duties: the instrument itself confers approvals and default factors; it does not create new monetary liability rules independent of the Regulations and the Act. The practical duty is to apply approved methods when the Regulations or Act require valuation and conversion calculations; the instrument does not alter who is the payer or recipient for payment splits, as those roles derive from the Act and Orders made under it.

Recordkeeping implication: given that the instrument approves specific methods and a default transition factor, practitioners and trustees have a practical duty to record which approved method or transition factor was applied when calculating a gross value and payable amount. The instrument supplies the legal basis for those methods (ss 5-6), and that record will be pertinent in settlement negotiations or court scrutiny.

In short, the instrument establishes a statutory baseline for valuation methodology and conversion factors, converting those baselines into duties to identify and apply the applicable Schedule provision and, where necessary, to apply the default factor of 1 (ss 5-6, 9).

The instrument is an approval instrument; it does not itself create new criminal sanctions, civil penalties or administrative fines. It operates by approving methods and factors for use under the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 and the Family Law Act 1975 provisions cited. Accordingly, enforcement and penalty consequences arise indirectly through the Act and the Regulations rather than through this instrument’s text.

Statutory force for approved methods: because the instrument approves methods and factors for the purposes of specified subsections of the Regulations (s 5(2); s 6(2)), courts, tribunals and administrators resolving disputes under the Act will treat valuations that do not follow the approved methods as potentially inconsistent with the statutory baseline. That can have consequences in litigation or in the exercise of judicial discretion when valuing assets for orders, but those consequences are derived from the Act and Regulations rather than from sanctions specified in this approval instrument itself.

Regulatory compliance context: trustees, valuers, lawyers and accountants who provide valuations used in family-law proceedings should expect that a valuation prepared in accordance with the approved Schedule methods will be the accepted standard for the purposes of regulatory compliance and court orders. Conversely, a valuation that departs from the approved method may be challenged and displaced by an opposing party or by a court. The instrument, by approving methods, thereby creates a regulatory expectation that may influence litigation outcomes; however, the instrument does not itself prescribe litigation remedies or penalties.

Saving clause effect on enforceability: the saving in s 9 preserves the applicability of an old approved method for specified historic PCSS agreements/orders. Trustees and parties governed by those arrangements must therefore operate under the preserved method; failure to apply the preserved method in those specific historical cases may attract challenge under the Act or Regulations in proceedings seeking to enforce the agreement or order. Again, the instrument does not set out sanctions itself but preserves the legal basis that courts will enforce.

Administrative enforcement: administrative agencies responsible for implementing the splitting regime will apply the Regulations and the Act. Since those instruments are the statutory enforcement framework, compliance with the approvals in this instrument translates into smoother administrative implementation. Non-conformance may require remedial steps such as corrected valuations or judicial clarification, but the instrument does not specify administrative penalties.

Interpretative effect and legal challenge: the primary enforcement mechanism the instrument effects is evidentiary and interpretative. The approvals will inform judges and registrars in adjudicating disputes about valuation without the instrument introducing separate enforcement provisions. Parties may litigate whether a Schedule provision applies to a given interest or whether the approved methods were properly applied; such litigation would proceed under the Act and Regulations and under ordinary civil remedies.

Recordkeeping and procedural consequences: while no penalties are set by the instrument, professional standards or fiduciary duties of trustees and advisers may require adherence to the approved methods. Failure to follow approved methods could lead to professional discipline or civil liability in other statutory or common-law fora, but any such consequences are outside the instrument’s text.

In sum, this instrument supplies legally approved methods and defaults which will be enforced operationally via the family-law regulatory and judicial apparatus. It does not itself create new penalty provisions; enforcement and remedies for non-compliance operate through the Family Law Act, the Regulations and the courts, applying the instrument’s approvals as statutory criteria (ss 5-6, 9).

This approval instrument operates entirely as a delegated or subordinate instrument tied to the Family Law Act 1975 and to the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations (the 2025 Regulations and, for certain references, the 2001 Regulations). Its interaction with other laws is primarily interpretative and purposive, by authorising particular methods and factors for statutory valuation and conversion tasks that the Act and Regulations require.

Delegated authority and statutory purpose: the instrument is made under subsections 62(1), 70(1) and 79(1) of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025 (s 3). Those subsections are the statutory hooks in the Regulations authorising approved methods and transition factors. The instrument therefore functions as a direct implementation of delegated rule-making power under the Regulations and thereby interacts functionally with the Act’s property-splitting regime in Part VIIIB/VIIIC (notes to s 3 reference specific Act provisions such as paragraph 90XT(2)(a), subparagraph 90XT(1)(a)(i) and subsection 90XT(3), and paragraph 90YY(2)(a), subparagraph 90YY(1)(a)(i) and subsection 90YY(4) of the Family Law Act 1975).

Phase-specific regulation: s 5(2) ties the approval to the phase classification in the Regulations. Where a Schedule provision expressly applies to growth phase, the approval is for subsection 62(1). Where it expressly applies to payment phase, the approval is for subsection 70(1). Where it is not phase-limited, the approval covers both subsections. This creates an interlocking relationship between the instrument and the Regulations’ phase-based valuation regime.

Reference to older regulations and interpretative effect: s 7 fixes references in the instrument to the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 as in force on 31 March 2025. This is expressly stated to be a contrary intention to paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Legislation Act 2003 (s 7(2)). Practically, this means that where the instrument or its Schedule refers to the 2001 Regulations, the legal meaning is frozen to the content of those regulations on the specified date rather than adapting to later amendments. This affects interpretation and cross-reference consistency if the substantive regulatory environment has changed after 31 March 2025.

Saving previous approvals for specified historical instruments: the instrument repeals the old approval instrument but saves Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old instrument as in force on 28 September 2023 for agreements or orders under Part VIIIB/VIIIC in relation to PCSS interests made on or before 28 September 2023 (s 9(1)-(2)). That creates a temporal bridge between regimes and ensures continuity for the specific historical category of PCSS agreements or orders. It explicitly preserves the effect of regulation 5 of the old approval instrument (note to s 9).

No change to Act-level entitlements: the instrument does not purport to alter the substantive entitlements or the allocation rules in the Family Law Act itself. It approves methods to calculate gross value and transition factor for the purposes of the Regulations and the Act’s splitting provisions. Any substantive change to who is entitled to what remains governed by the Act and court orders; the instrument affects the technical conversion rules and therefore interacts functionally, not substantively, with underlying entitlement law.

Operational interface with trustees and superannuation law: although not amending superannuation statute or prudential requirements, the instrument impinges on trustees’ operational duties when implementing a payment split under family-law orders. Trustees will need to align their internal processes or valuation acceptance criteria with the approved methods where they apply. This may create an operational intersection between family-law splitting orders and trustees’ compliance obligations under superannuation law to follow court orders and Act/Regulations-compliant valuations.

In summary, this instrument is a delegated implementation instrument that supplies authorised valuation and transition-factor mechanisms for the application of the Family Law Act and the family-law superannuation Regulations. It interacts by supplying approved technical rules that feed into statutory entitlements, by freezing certain references to earlier Regulations, and by preserving a narrowly identified previous approval for historic PCSS arrangements (ss 3, 5-7, 9).

The instrument itself contains limited historical material. The text records these discrete amendment-history items and preservation steps, which practitioners must note.

Repeal of the old approval instrument: the instrument replaces the Family Law (Superannuation) (Methods and Factors for Valuing Particular Superannuation Interests) Approval 2003, referred to in the instrument as the old approval instrument. The instrument states as a note in the definitions that the old approval instrument was repealed by this instrument on 1 April 2025 (s 4 note). That places the new instrument as the successor approval mechanism from that date forward, subject to the saving clause described below.

Saving for PCSS-related historical instruments: despite the repeal of the old approval instrument, s 9(2) preserves Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the old approval instrument, as in force on 28 September 2023, for agreements or court orders made under Part VIIIB or VIIIC on or before 28 September 2023 that relate to superannuation interests in the retirement scheme constituted by the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. The instrument explicitly notes this preserves the effect of regulation 5 of the old approval instrument. The practical consequence is that in respect of certain historic PCSS agreements/orders, the valuation rules in the old approval instrument continue to operate notwithstanding repeal.

Temporal anchoring of references to the 2001 Regulations: s 7(1) provides that references in this instrument to the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 are to the version of those Regulations as in force on 31 March 2025. Subsection 7(2) states that this is a contrary intention to certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003. That is an express interpretative choice in the current instrument preventing later amendments to the 2001 Regulations (if any) from altering the meaning of any references to the 2001 Regulations in this instrument.

No other amendments recorded: the instrument text supplied contains no further historical annotations about earlier drafts, prior amendments, or legislative history beyond the repeal of the 2003 instrument and the saving for PCSS matters. The instrument does not, in the text supplied, show any interim amendments made between commencement and the present.

Authority and cross-references: the instrument declares in s 3 that it is made under subsections 62(1), 70(1) and 79(1) of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2025. It also includes a note referencing parts of the Family Law Act 1975 (paragraph 90XT(2)(a), subparagraph 90XT(1)(a)(i) and subsection 90XT(3); paragraph 90YY(2)(a), subparagraph 90YY(1)(a)(i) and subsection 90YY(4)). Those cross-references indicate the Act/Regulations provisions that frame the delegated power enabling this instrument to operate.

Implication for practitioners: because the instrument replaced a 2003 approval instrument and preserved a narrow piece of the prior instrument for historic PCSS orders, practitioners must check the dates of operative court orders and agreements to determine whether the new Schedule provisions or the preserved Part 5 of the old instrument applies (s 9). The instrument’s amendment history, insofar as it exists in the text, is compact and focused on these two transitions.

The instrument as supplied contains no recorded litigation history. There are no court decisions or tribunal rulings cited in the instrument’s text, nor are any cases named or noted in the instrument itself. The instrument therefore presents no internal case law to summarise.

Potential litigation vectors implied by the instrument’s mechanics: although there is no recorded litigation history, the instrument sets out approval principles that could give rise to disputes in family-law proceedings. Those likely areas of contention, which derive directly from the instrument’s provisions, include the following.

Applicability of Schedule provisions: parties may litigate whether a particular Schedule provision applies to a specific superannuation interest. Because s 5 makes approval contingent on Schedule provisions that "apply to a superannuation interest", disputes could arise about whether the factual characteristics of an interest match the Schedule description. Such a litigated question would require courts to interpret the Schedule provision and to decide whether the approved method must be used.

Phase classification disputes: s 5(2) conditions the scope of approval on whether the Schedule provision expressly applies to growth phase, payment phase, or both. Parties may contest an interest’s phase classification at operative time, which would determine whether a Schedule method is the applicable statutory method under subsection 62(1) or subsection 70(1) of the Regulations.

Transition factor determination: s 6 provides that if the Schedule specifies a transition factor or methods to determine it, those are approved; otherwise the transition factor of 1 applies. Litigation could arise over whether a Schedule provision in fact specifies a transition factor or provides methods for it, and over whether an alternative method used by a party is permissible. Where the Schedule is silent or ambiguous, disputes may focus on whether the default factor 1 should apply.

Saving clause boundaries: s 9 saves Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old approval instrument for agreements/orders under Part VIIIB/VIIIC made on or before 28 September 2023 related to PCSS interests. Litigation might arise about whether a particular agreement or order falls within this saving provision, especially where operative times or scheme classifications are disputed. The instrument’s explicit statement that the old provision continues to apply "whether the operative time in relation to the relevant payment split is before, on or after 29 September 2023" (s 9(2)) suggests that temporal disputes could nonetheless generate litigation about equitable or practical application.

Interpretative tension from frozen references: s 7 anchors references to the 2001 Regulations as at 31 March 2025 and states that this is a contrary intention to certain interpretation Act provisions. Legal argument could be raised in litigation about whether that anchoring produces interpretative friction with other regulatory references or subsequent amendments to the 2001 Regulations in different instruments.

Evidentiary weight of approved methods: parties may litigate the weight to be given to approved methods, for example where a valuation prepared by one party follows the approved Schedule method but the other party seeks to rely on a different approach. Courts will have to consider whether departures from an approved method are justified or whether the approved method has statutory primacy for the valuation exercise in question.

No reported cases in the instrument: because the instrument contains no case citations or litigation history, any actual litigation on these issues would be the product of subsequent disputes that use the instrument as a statutory basis. Practitioners should therefore monitor case law for how courts treat Schedule provisions, phase application, and the default transition factor.

In short, the instrument contains no internal litigation history, but its text identifies discrete factual and interpretative issues that are fertile ground for dispute under the Family Law Act and Regulations, in particular application of Schedule provisions, phase classification, transition-factor specification, and the narrow saving for PCSS agreements/orders (ss 5-7, 9).

This instrument contains several technical details and drafting choices that can produce traps for practitioners if unexamined. The following are concrete, source‑grounded issues to watch for, with cross-references to the instrument’s provisions.

Schedule-dependent substance: the approvals in ss 5 and 6 only operate for methods and transition factors that are specified in a Schedule provision that "applies to a superannuation interest" (s 5(1); s 6(1)). The instrument text provided here does not include the Schedule content. A practical "gotcha" is assuming that a particular method exists or applies without checking the Schedule’s wording. If the Schedule does not mention an interest type or is ambiguous, the default transition factor of 1 applies (s 6(2)(b)), and the approved gross-value method may be absent.

Phase expressness requirement: s 5(2) conditions the applicability of an approval on whether the Schedule provision "expressly" applies to interests in the growth phase or the payment phase. If a Schedule provision fails to expressly state the phase, the approval may be interpreted as applying to both phases (s 5(2)(c)), but the expressness requirement means that practitioners must verify the Schedule text carefully. Misreading phase applicability can produce incorrect valuation approaches.

Default transition factor 1: s 6(2)(b) fixes a transition factor of 1 where the Schedule does not specify otherwise. This is a clean default but can be a significant substantive conversion assumption. A practitioner who assumes some other transition factor without checking the Schedule may misstate the payable amount. The instrument makes the default explicit; do not substitute other factors absent Schedule approval.

Temporal caveat for PCSS saving: s 9 protects Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old approval instrument only for agreements or court orders made under Part VIIIB or VIIIC on or before 28 September 2023 and only in relation to PCSS interests. Practitioners dealing with historic orders must check both the date and the scheme to determine whether the old method survives. The saving applies "whether the operative time in relation to the relevant payment split is before, on or after 29 September 2023" (s 9(2)), which can produce non‑intuitive temporal outcomes if practitioners misread operative-time interplay.

Anchoring of 2001 Regulations references: s 7(1) fixes references to the 2001 Regulations as at 31 March 2025 and states that this is a contrary intention to certain interpretative provisions (s 7(2)). A common pitfall would be to assume a reference to the 2001 Regulations means their current text; instead, the instrument fixes the citation to a past state. Where a Schedule or instrument cross-references the 2001 Regulations, check the content of those regulations as at 31 March 2025.

Narrow scope of preserved old approval: the instrument repealed the old approval instrument but preserved only Part 5 of Schedule 1 for a narrow class of PCSS matters (s 9). A practitioner who assumes broad continuity of the old approval instrument across other plan types or agreements will be mistaken. The old instrument’s other parts do not continue to apply save for the narrowly specified PCSS arrangements.

No standalone enforcement text: the instrument provides approved methods and factors but contains no penalty or procedural enforcement mechanisms of its own. A gotcha is assuming the approval instrument creates a new compliance regime with standalone sanctions. Enforcement consequences will arise through the Act and the Regulations rather than through this instrument’s text.

Dependence on definitions in Act and Regulations: s 4 makes clear the instrument relies on definitions from Part VIIIB/VIIIC of the Act or the Regulations. Misreading or misapplying the instrument without applying those definitions (eligible superannuation plan, growth phase, operative time, payment split, etc.) is a practical hazard. Make sure to import and apply the statutory definitions when using the approved methods.

Assuming Schedule includes transition-factor methods: s 6(2)(a) approves methods for determining the transition factor only if the Schedule specifies them. Do not assume the Schedule grants such methods by default. If the Schedule gives only a valuation method and is silent as to the transition factor, s 6(2)(b) supplies factor 1.

Procedural evidence risk: because the instrument’s approvals will likely be used as a statutory baseline in court, using an unapproved variant method or failing to document adherence to the approved method is an evidential risk in litigation. Practitioners should record exactly which Schedule provision and which formulae were applied.

In short, the main gotchas are Schedule dependence, phase expressness, the default transition factor of 1, the narrow PCSS saving, the anchoring to the 2001 Regulations as at a specific date, absence of standalone enforcement mechanisms, and dependence on Act/Regulations definitions (ss 4-7, 9). Do not assume the Schedule content; verify it and the applicable phase and dates before preparing or relying upon valuations.

Compliance with this instrument is chiefly about applying the correct, Schedule-approved methods and transition factors when valuing superannuation interests for family-law splitting purposes. The following practical checklist, grounded in the instrument’s provisions, sets out the steps practitioners, trustees and valuers should follow.

1. Locate the Schedule provision that applies to the superannuation interest (s 5(1)).

   • Confirm that the Schedule contains a provision that specifically "applies to a superannuation interest" of the type you are dealing with. The instrument’s approvals are triggered only where a Schedule provision applies to the interest (s 5(1)). Do not proceed on assumption; read the Schedule wording.

2. Determine the phase of the interest and the Schedule provision’s express scope (s 5(2)).

   • Identify whether the interest is in the growth phase or the payment phase at the operative time using the definitions imported from the Act/Regulations (s 4).
   • Check whether the Schedule provision "expressly applies" to growth-phase interests, to payment-phase interests, or is not phase-limited. This determines whether the approval is for subsection 62(1) (growth), subsection 70(1) (payment), or both (s 5(2)).

3. Apply the approved method or factors to determine the gross value (s 5(1)).

   • Use the exact method, formulae, assumptions and factors specified in the applicable Schedule provision to compute gross value. The instrument’s legal approval covers those methods or factors only where they are specified in the Schedule (s 5(1)).

4. Identify the transition factor or method to convert gross value into payable amount (s 6).

   • If the Schedule provision specifies a transition factor or methods for determining the transition factor, apply those approved rules for the purposes of subsection 79(1) of the Regulations (s 6(2)(a)).
   • If the Schedule is silent on transition factors, apply the default transition factor of 1 approved by the instrument (s 6(2)(b)). Do not substitute other conversion factors without statutory approval.

5. Record and document the valuation and conversion steps.

   • Document which Schedule provision was used, the date of the valuation, the phase determination, the gross-value computation, the transition factor applied and the resulting payable amount. The instrument supplies the statutory basis for the selected methods (ss 5-6). Clear documentation will assist trustees, courts and auditors.

6. For historic PCSS agreements or orders, confirm whether the old approval method continues to apply (s 9).

   • If the matter involves an agreement or order made under Part VIIIB or VIIIC on or before 28 September 2023 in relation to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme, apply Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the old approval instrument as in force on 28 September 2023 for gross-value determination (s 9(1)-(2)). Verify that the agreement or order’s date and scheme match the saving clause conditions.

7. Where references in other materials are to the 2001 Regulations, treat those references as fixed to the 2001 Regulations as in force on 31 March 2025 (s 7(1)).

   • If any Schedule provision or ancillary guidance cites provisions of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001, use the version as at 31 March 2025 for interpretation, per s 7(1)-(2). This avoids interpretative drift from later amendments.

8. Coordinate with trustees and administrators.

   • Provide trustees with the valuation report showing compliance with the approved Schedule method and the applied transition factor. Trustees will often rely on valuations to implement payment splits under family-law orders; presenting the statutory grounding (ss 5-6) reduces implementation friction.

9. Anticipate disputes and preserve evidence.

   • Given the instrument’s approvals may be contested in litigation over applicability or phase classification, preserve contemporaneous evidence supporting the selection of Schedule methods, phase determination and operative-time calculations. This is particularly important where s 9 saving clauses might apply or where Schedule wording is ambiguous.

10. Review professional and fiduciary obligations.

    • Ensure valuation work complies not only with the statutory approvals in this instrument but also with professional standards, fiduciary duties of trustees and the family-law procedural rules. The instrument provides the statutory method approvals; professional obligations may impose additional procedural or disclosure duties.

11. Seek judicial clarification where Schedule applicability is unclear.

    • If the Schedule text does not clearly apply to the interest in question, consider seeking consent orders specifying method and transition factor, or apply for judicial determination. The instrument supplies statutory approvals only where the Schedule provision applies or where its default transition factor applies (ss 5-6).

12. Monitor for future amendments or case law.

    • Although s 7 fixes references to the 2001 Regulations as at 31 March 2025 for the purposes of this instrument, ensure you track any Court interpretations of the Schedule provisions and any regulatory amendments that affect application in the 2025 Regulations context.

Following these steps will align valuation practices with the statutory approvals and defaults created by the instrument. The critical compliance tasks are locating the correct Schedule provision, applying it to the correct phase, using the approved gross-value method, applying the approved or default transition factor, and documenting all steps (ss 4-6, 7, 9).