Federal Government Winding Back Super Fund Accountability Reforms

[Home Alone]

Labor is winding back reforms meant to hold super funds accountable to their members

The requirement that super funds act in the best financial interests of their members is up for review, as is the nature of the performance test that weeds out poorly-performing funds.

theconversation.com

Could someone explain the ALP's motivations here? On the face of it, seems a bit counter to their normal policy direction, so not sure if I am missing something.

. My understanding that it wasn't a benefit to members in all caes.

I know of a few industry super funds where the membership was a high risk insurance category. The funds trustees had a policy of funding members premiums through investment returns. These funds were deemed to be under performing and have now merged into bigger funds. Subsequently these members are now getting better investments returns, but the insurance arrangements for the members are far far worse. The legislation assumed investment return is the only measure to compare the members best interest.

The following of the members money was just illogical from the inception. All super product arent the same. If the members money is in an accumulation plan, but changes jobs to to a new employer that has a defined benefit plan. The new current rules now disadvantage the member. The legislation wrongly assumed all funds a Super Guaranteed contribution based.

 

[Pessimistic]

Simple.
Unions operate the Industry super funds.
The coalition introduced this with the express purpose of taking away from workers and handing it to the Employer groups and banks.

After running in 2019 on ‘we won’t mess with super’

 

[Crankyhawk]

Coalition motivations aside, can you explain a little bit more about how specifically the rollbacks are in workers’ interests? It’s not totally clear to me

It seems to me that it will increase the opportunity for funds to divert money to activities that don’t grow members’ super balances - which seems bad for workers

But I may be missing something

Speculative - it could be that some funds were feeling forced to invest in certain sectors for financial return when the members may have expressed concern from social point of view (eg invest in armaments, polluters etc)
If could be that the performance test is not fit for purpose or costs of compliance with it are excessive (or funnel money into unaccountable third parties as well - financial "counsellors" and the like - parasite secotr)

 

[sonofafrank]

Simple.
Unions operate the Industry super funds.
The coalition introduced this with the express purpose of taking away from workers and handing it to the Employer groups and banks.

Under the Whitlam and Hawke governments ALP went from a workers party to a globalist party whist pretending to be the workers party. It was Hawke and Keating that arranged the legislation and started the great Australian asset sell not the LNP!

The fact the people blame and think the NLP could even organise that is hilarious in it self

 

[madmug]

Because the "reforms" were not equitable.

They were designed to give underperforming retail super a leg up.

Absolutely. The LNP were interested in the ideology war against Unions & them protecting members.

Also giving a big hand up (out) to their mates in the 'city', the banks & other financial thieves.

I spent some time in Retail super. A guy I knew looked after me & did a good job. He retired & some others took over his business. I soon saw the difference.

I shifted to an Industry super fund. Cheaper & better return that the last lot I dealt with.

 

[nut]

The real reason !!!!!

The New Daily

The New Daily - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Murdoch getting pissed off about a union backed independent news source … that was a threat to his power.

 

[Chief]

The real reason !!!!!

The New Daily

The New Daily - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Murdoch getting pissed off about a union backed independent news source … that was a threat to his power.

There you go Caesar - spending money on a news web site would probably fall afoul of the LNP regs, wouldn't it?

 

[Gough]

I think we're seeing the consequences of the lack of scrutiny on the Liberal Party for the last fifteen years right now. Corruption that has for so long gone unreported has become so egregious that it can't be ignored even by those who would prefer to.

 

[ferball]

That's a moral choice that people can make. It amazes me that there is anyone who thinks winding back provisions that require a super fund to act in the best financial interests of its members is a good idea.

The other thing to consider is that the current guidelines assess the performance of a fund against a relevant benchmark. So if a fund wants to promote itself as investing in only "x" type of project, its performance benchmark will be against all of the "x" type projects available. Again, I can't understand what the rationale is from people who think this sort of evaluation shouldn't be in place.

So you think so called ethical super funds should be forced to invest in unethical businesses that provide a better return despite their sole selling point being that they may frogoe some financial return for an ethical one?

 

[William Wonka]

So you think so called ethical super funds should be forced to invest in unethical businesses that provide a better return despite their sole selling point being that they may frogoe some financial return for an ethical one?

Ethics over pure profit?

What are you a Commie???

 

[kranky al]

There can be no dispute industry super funds consistantly outperform retail ones by no small margin.

Why not force the retail ones to operate in the same manner the industry ones do if preservation of retirement funding is the goal?

THE UNION RUN FUNDS KEEP DOING CULTURE WAR THINGS WE WERE TRYING TO STOP THAT - FUNDS SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO MAKE RETIREES MORE MONEY

Err dont they make way more money than the retail funds

NO, I MEAN YES….. BUT DONT DO IT LIKE THAT

But dont the retail funds belong to financial institutions in australia that basically tell the government what to do and the government do it?

YES BUT THEY TELL US TO DO GOOD THINGS LIKE COAL AND OIL AND GAS NOT LIKE THE INDUSTRY FUNDS THAT ARE DISINVESTING IN THE GOOD THINGS THAT WE ARE BRIB….I MEAN ENCOURAGED TO PROMOTE

 

[Power Raid]

There can be no dispute industry super funds consistantly outperform retail ones by no small margin.

Why not force the retail ones to operate in the same manner the industry ones do if preservation of retirement funding is the goal?

I celebrate that unions have become more capitalist minded

I celebrate that industry funds outperform

What I would like to preserve is the integrity and purpose of super

 

[kranky al]

I celebrate that unions have become more capitalist minded

I celebrate that industry funds outperform

What I would like to preserve is the integrity and purpose of super

To ensure a bright financial future for their members.

At some stage we will gave to bite the bullet and get serious about climate change.

Who dya reckon is gonna pay for that?

If you say the fossil fuel industry that already pays f/a tax or royalties….. bzzzzt - it will be the same baggy arse folk contributing to these funds - or their kids….

 

[nut]

I celebrate that unions have become more capitalist minded

I celebrate that industry funds outperform

What I would like to preserve is the integrity and purpose of super

It’s not all about the maximum increase in super accounts … it’s about investing in a better future.

A great example is how the Norwegian Sovereign fund invest Ethically. They got a philosopher to help set it up.