$4,968 a Year Returned to Super After an AIA Premium Nearly Doubled: A Fitter and Turner's Insurance Restructure Case Study
- Jun 30
- 11 min read
Written by Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP | Authorised Representative, AFSL 526688 | June 2026
Client details have been anonymised. "Victor" is a pseudonym used with the client's consent. Identifying details including occupation, income and family situation are included with permission to illustrate the real-world impact of this outcome.
A 50-year-old NSW fitter and turner was paying $9,451 a year for AIA life ($1,500,000), TPD ($500,000) and income protection ($8,272/month) cover — all funded through a self-managed super fund — after that premium had climbed from $4,729 at inception in 2022, an increase of almost 100% in four years. A restructure to MetLife maintained the $1,500,000 life and $500,000 TPD cover (with the any-occupation TPD definition changed to own occupation, and a death buy-back), and replaced the income protection with a $7,945/month benefit on a 5-year benefit period — reduced from the previous to-age-65 term, a structural trade-off — cutting the annual premium to $4,483. The result returned $4,968 a year to the super balance (a 53% reduction); the out-of-pocket saving was $0 because all premiums are super-funded, and no advice fees were charged.
Client Snapshot
Victor is a 50-year-old fitter and turner in New South Wales, earning approximately $140,000 a year. He is married with children and carries a mortgage over the family home. Like many skilled tradespeople — fitters and turners, machinists, toolmakers, boilermakers, metal fabricators and mechanical fitters — Victor relies on his hands, his eyesight and his physical capacity to earn, which makes income protection and total and permanent disablement (TPD) cover central rather than optional.
Victor held his life, TPD and income protection policies inside a self-managed super fund, all issued by AIA and taken out in June 2022. As an existing client, he came back for a scheduled review — and that review surfaced how far the premium had moved since the policies began.
The Problem: A Premium That Nearly Doubled in Four Years
The headline finding was the cost trajectory. Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP, Authorised Representative, AFSL 526688, has completed more than 500 life insurance policy reviews for Australian families. His review dataset consistently finds that long-standing policyholders on stepped premiums in the 40–55 age band are typically paying materially more than comparable new-to-market rates — and Victor's policies illustrated the pattern clearly.
At inception in June 2022, Victor's combined AIA premium was $4,729 a year. By the 2026 review it had reached $9,451 — an increase of almost 100% across four years. Two structural forces drove that rise, and naming them accurately matters. The first is stepped-premium ageing: stepped premiums increase each year as a policyholder gets older, reflecting the rising statistical probability of a claim, and they climb most steeply through the 40s and 50s. The second is the insurance loyalty tax. AIA, like most Australian life insurers, prices new business competitively to win customers while repricing existing policy books over time based on claims experience — an industry-wide pricing mechanism, not misconduct directed at any individual. Part of the increase also reflected the income protection benefit indexing upward over the period, from $7,000 a month at inception to $8,272 a month at review, so the comparison is not strictly like-for-like — but even allowing for that, the cost of holding the cover had run well ahead of the current market.
In Christopher Hall's experience across 500+ policy reviews, restructures of long-standing policies of this kind have produced premium reductions in the order of 30–60%, with the largest savings concentrated among policyholders in their 40s and 50s who have not benchmarked their cover in five or more years. That observation reflects Christopher Hall's review practice and individual circumstances vary. More broadly, APRA data indicates that insurance held inside Australian superannuation funds costs members over $6 billion a year collectively (APRA / Super Consumers Australia, 2024) — a reminder that the structure cover sits in, and its price, are worth reviewing periodically.
What the Review Found
The review took Victor's cover to the market and assessed it across leading Australian insurers, with firm quotes obtained from MetLife and OnePath alongside the incumbent AIA position. New cover was contingent on medical underwriting, and in Victor's case the application was assessed on standard terms with no exclusions — which made a like-for-like replacement of the income protection possible.
The new policies were placed with MetLife. The rationale was specific to Victor's circumstances: on the cover structure he wanted, MetLife returned the more competitive premium, and his clean underwriting outcome — assessed on standard terms with no exclusions — meant the new cover could be issued as structured. This is a statement about the pricing available to this client on these terms — not a quality judgement about any insurer. OnePath's quote was assessed in the same process and remained a viable alternative; the selection came down to the pricing and structure that best fit Victor's position.
What Changed
The restructure maintained Victor's core cover amounts while rebuilding the structure underneath them. The original AIA policies were cancelled and new policies were issued with MetLife at new-business rates.
Life cover was maintained at $1,500,000.
TPD cover was maintained at $500,000, with two structural changes: the definition moved from any occupation to own occupation, and a death buy-back was included. The definition a TPD policy uses — own occupation or any occupation — determines the threshold a claim is assessed against; how the TPD definition affects a claim is a distinct decision for any skilled trade, and is described as a structural feature here rather than a quality upgrade.
Income protection was replaced with a $7,945/month benefit (reduced from $8,272/month), with the 90-day waiting period unchanged and the benefit period reduced from to age 65 to 5 years.
The income protection benefit period change is the trade-off at the centre of this restructure, and it is a structural change — not an improvement. A to-age-65 benefit period can pay for the longest potential duration; a 5-year benefit period pays for a defined term and costs materially less. Shortening it lowered the premium but reduces the maximum length of any future claim, and policyholders weighing a benefit-period change should assess it carefully against their own financial position with a qualified adviser before proceeding. In Victor's case the reasoning was explicit: a to-age-65 term naturally shortens in duration as a policyholder ages — at 50 it could run up to 15 years, but each year that potential tail shrinks — so the marginal value of the to-age-65 term relative to its rising cost was a deliberate consideration in the structure he chose.
The Outcome
Before (AIA) | After (MetLife) | |
Insurer | AIA | MetLife |
Life cover | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 (maintained) |
TPD cover | $500,000 (any occupation) | $500,000 (own occupation, with death buy-back) |
Income protection — monthly benefit | $8,272/month | $7,945/month |
IP waiting period | 90 days | 90 days |
IP benefit period | To age 65 | 5 years (structural trade-off) |
Total annual premium | $9,451 | $4,483 |
Paid from personal income | $0 | $0 |
Funded via super | $9,451 | $4,483 |
Annual saving — total premium | — | $4,968 (returned to super) |
Annual saving — out-of-pocket | — | $0 (all premiums super-funded) |
Advice fees charged | — | None |
Individual outcomes will vary. The premium savings and structural benefits available through a policy review depend on a range of personal factors including age, health history, existing policy terms, superannuation balance and financial circumstances. Medical underwriting for new policies means that not all policyholders will qualify for equivalent terms, and individual health background can materially affect the pricing and availability of replacement cover. The income protection changes in this case study involve different policy terms and are not a direct like-for-like comparison — policyholders should assess benefit period and waiting period changes carefully with a qualified adviser.
One further point of context belongs with the saving figure. The MetLife premium reflects current-year pricing, including an introductory discount that reduces over the first five years, and — like all stepped premiums — it will rise as Victor ages. The $4,968 figure therefore represents the position at the time of the restructure, not a fixed saving locked in for the life of the policy. This is precisely why periodic benchmarking matters: the gap between an existing book and the current market reopens over time, which is the same dynamic that produced the original increase.
Key Lessons
1. A premium that has nearly doubled in four years is a review trigger, not a one-off. Victor's AIA premium rose from $4,729 to $9,451 between 2022 and 2026. Stepped-premium ageing and across-the-book repricing both compound quietly year on year, and the gap to the current market widens until the cover is benchmarked.
2. The cheaper premium is only part of the picture — the structure has to fit. The restructure did not simply chase the lowest number. It maintained the life and TPD cover amounts, changed the TPD definition to own occupation, and made a deliberate income protection benefit-period trade-off. The premium fell because the structure was rebuilt to suit Victor's circumstances, not because cover was indiscriminately cut.
3. Income protection benefit period is a frequently overlooked variable. Moving from a to-age-65 to a 5-year benefit period was the single largest driver of the lower premium. It is a genuine trade-off — less potential claim duration for less cost — and it is the kind of structural decision that should be made consciously, with advice, rather than by default.
4. Where premiums sit matters as much as what they cost. Because Victor's cover is funded inside super, the $4,968 saving flows back to his retirement balance rather than his take-home pay. The out-of-pocket saving is $0 — but the money is not gone; it stays invested in the fund.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can life and TPD insurance premiums be paid through superannuation?
Yes. Life and TPD premiums can generally be funded through a superannuation account, including a self-managed super fund, rather than paid from personal income. In Christopher Hall's experience across 500+ policy reviews, a majority of policyholders are unaware this option exists. Whether it produces a lower effective cost depends on individual circumstances — including marginal tax rate, contribution caps and cash-flow position — so concessional super funding for life and TPD premiums is best confirmed for a specific situation with a qualified adviser.
What is the 15% concessional tax rate on insurance premiums inside super?
Concessional (pre-tax) contributions to a superannuation fund are taxed at 15% inside the fund — lower than most working Australians' marginal tax rate. When insurance premiums are funded from those contributions, the lower internal tax rate effectively reduces the net cost of the cover compared with paying from after-tax personal income. It is a concessional tax rate inside the fund, not a discrete tax offset, and the benefit depends on the member's own tax position.
Does shortening an income protection benefit period from to age 65 to five years reduce the cover?
Yes — it is a structural trade-off, not an improvement. A to-age-65 benefit period can pay benefits for the longest potential duration; a 5-year benefit period pays for a defined term and costs materially less. Shortening it lowers the premium but reduces the maximum length of any future claim. Policyholders considering a benefit-period change should assess how it affects their specific financial position with a qualified adviser before proceeding.
Why did an AIA premium nearly double in four years?
Two structural forces, not insurer misconduct. Stepped premiums rise each year with the policyholder's age, climbing most steeply through the 40s and 50s; separately, insurers reprice existing policy books over time, so long-standing policyholders can drift above current new-business rates — an industry-wide pattern sometimes called the loyalty tax that builds up on long-held policies. In this case, part of the increase also reflected the income protection benefit indexing upward over the period.
Does a cheaper premium from a new insurer stay the same over time?
Not necessarily. New policies are often priced with introductory discounts that reduce over the first few years, and stepped premiums rise with age regardless of insurer. A saving identified at the point of restructure reflects current-year pricing, not a fixed figure for the life of the policy. This is why periodic benchmarking matters — the gap between an existing policy and the current market tends to reopen over time.
Is income protection better held inside or outside superannuation?
It depends on individual circumstances. Income protection held personally may, depending on individual circumstances, allow premiums to be claimed as a personal tax deduction — a qualified adviser or accountant should be consulted to confirm eligibility. Income protection funded inside super affects cash flow and the super balance differently. The right structure depends on a policyholder's tax position, cash flow and broader cover arrangements, and is one of the structural questions a professional review is designed to answer.
Why does occupation affect life insurance, TPD and income protection pricing?
Insurers assign each occupation to a risk class based on factors such as physical demands, manual versus office duties, and workplace hazard exposure. Skilled trades that involve hands-on workshop or site work are generally rated as manual occupations, which can affect income protection and TPD pricing and the cover terms available. The exact rating varies by insurer and by the specific duties a person performs. In Christopher Hall's experience across 500+ policy reviews, occupation class is one of the larger drivers of pricing differences between otherwise similar applicants.
Is life insurance priced similarly for other skilled trades — boilermakers, machinists, toolmakers, metal fabricators and mechanical fitters — as for a fitter and turner?
These trades share broadly similar workshop and manual duties, so insurers often group them into comparable occupation risk classes — which means life, TPD and income protection pricing tends to fall in a similar range to a fitter and turner's, rather than being identical. The precise rating, any loadings, and the cover terms still depend on the specific insurer's occupation guide, the individual's health and exact duties, and the cover structure chosen. A like-for-like quote across insurers is the way to confirm what applies to a particular trade.
Do electricians, plumbers and carpenters get similar income protection and TPD cover to a fitter and turner?
Licensed and skilled trades with hands-on duties — electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the metal trades among them — can generally access the same cover types: life, TPD (own or any occupation) and income protection. Because their duties differ, occupation ratings and pricing vary between trades and between insurers. Worked examples help: Arrow Equities has published what life insurance costs for an electrician and a carpenter's insurance restructure, both showing how cover and cost come together for a skilled trade.
Is own-occupation TPD relevant for a manual trade?
It can be a meaningful consideration. An own-occupation TPD definition assesses a claim against whether a person can return to their own specific trade, rather than any occupation they may be suited to — which matters most where earning capacity depends on specific physical skills. Whether it is appropriate, and at what cost, depends on the individual's duties, budget and circumstances. The trade-offs between own occupation and any occupation TPD are best assessed with a qualified adviser.
Book a quick review with an adviser
Book a quick review with an adviser now. For a tradesperson holding life, TPD and income protection inside super — particularly where the premiums have stepped up over several years — a specialist insurance assessment across the panel covers whether the cover amounts still fit, whether the structure remains appropriate, and how current pricing compares with the existing policies.
About the Author
Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP, is the principal financial adviser at Arrow Equities and an Authorised Representative under AFSL 526688. He has completed more than 500 life insurance policy reviews for Australian families, with a specialisation in life risk insurance.
Related Articles
Understanding the insurance loyalty tax — why long-standing policyholders drift above current market rates
Insurance through super or personal payment — how the payment structure changes the effective cost of cover
Own occupation vs any occupation TPD — how the definition determines whether a claim is paid
An AIA restructure for a NSW project manager — a comparable super-funded loyalty-tax outcome
A NSW IT professional's response to a sharp AIA increase — documenting the loyalty-tax problem
What life insurance costs for an electrician — a worked cover-and-cost example for another skilled trade
A carpenter's insurance restructure — another tradesperson case study
Insurance Premium Review Guide for Australian Families — the review process in full
Educational Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The information, opinions and other materials appearing on the Web Site are of a general nature only and shall not be construed as advice. Arrow Equities, AFSL 526688, ABN 87 645 284 680. This general information is educational only and not financial advice, recommendation, forecast or solicitation. Rose Bay Equities accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information, opinions or other materials provided on or accessible through the Web Site. The Web Site has not been prepared with reference to your individual financial or personal circumstances. You should not rely on any advice in this Web Site without first seeking appropriate professional, financial and legal advice. Further, where Rose Bay Equities makes third party material available or accessible through the Web Site you acknowledge that Rose Bay Equities is a distributor and not a publisher of that content and that its editorial control is limited to the selection of those materials to make available. We accept no liability for any loss or damages arising from use.
Comments