A logging truck driver who fell ill had no insurance through his super fund - and a Federal Court ruling explains why.
In Henschke v Australian Retirement Trust [2026] FCA 80, handed down on February 12, 2026, Justice Wheatley dismissed an application by Bradley Henschke seeking an extension of time to appeal a determination by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. The case was filed on February 28, 2025. At its core was a simple question: did Mr Henschke, a self-represented logging truck driver, actually have insurance coverage through any of his superannuation accounts with Australian Retirement Trust?
The answer, according to both the AFCA and the Court, was no. And the reason comes down to a combination of low account balances and a legislative mechanism that was never switched on.
Mr Henschke held three accounts with the fund at different times. The dispute centred on his Second Account. He claimed he completed and submitted a membership application form on or about May 1, 2021, through which he did not opt out of automatic death and TPD cover and opted in to income protection cover. The AFCA found the form was never received. Instead, it determined the account was created by an employer superannuation contribution on June 30, 2021.
Mr Henschke claimed to have suffered an illness on or about July 23, 2021, and sought insurance benefits of between $100,001 and $200,000.
Under the Putting Members' Interests First reforms, the Sunsuper Product Disclosure Statement made clear that automatic death and TPD cover was available — but only where, among other things, "your account balance has reached $6,000." Mr Henschke accepted that none of his accounts ever reached that mark. His highest balance was $706.57.
That left one potential avenue: the dangerous occupation exception under section 68AAF of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The provision allows trustees to elect that members in specified dangerous occupations will be covered by the exception. Mr Henschke argued that as a truck driver in the logging industry, it should have applied and that the trustee had a duty to consider it.
The AFCA found "there is no evidence before me that the dangerous occupations exception under section 68AAF in the SIS Act, applied in the [Applicant's] circumstances."
Justice Wheatley agreed. The provision requires a trustee to make an active election — and there was no evidence Australian Retirement Trust had ever done so. Without that step, section 68AAF simply did not apply, regardless of how dangerous the occupation.
The Court dismissed the application across all six grounds and ordered Mr Henschke to pay costs.
The outcome leaves a pointed question for the industry: if trustees are not activating the dangerous occupation exception, how many workers in high-risk jobs are going without coverage they might otherwise have had?
