The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has been questioned as to why it failed to include a specific expert on self-managed superannuation funds in the Financial Services and Credit Panel.
Speaking at the Senate Estimates, ASIC said the 31 initial members of the panel were decided based on nominations from peak organisations who had submitted consultation on the Better Advice Bill.
“We made sure that the people we were picking were members from a range of specialisation within advice to ensure that the disciplinary body is a proper peer review process.
“I’d imagine most financial advisers have some experience with self-managed superannuation, that’s a pretty broad skillset. But we tried to get a full cross-section of people from the industry.
“The panel isn’t just limited to these people, this is the first tranche and if we feel there’s a skillset or expertise that is missing, there is no reason why we couldn’t appoint a different person.”
The reason there were no consumer groups represented on the panel was because it was a peer panel rather than a representative body.
The impact of identity theft and its threat to superannuation savings were highlighted in a case that went before the Federal Court at the end of 2023.
A recent NSW Supreme Court decision is an important reminder that while super funds may be subject to restrictive superannuation and tax laws, in essence they are still a trust and subject to equitable and common law claims, says a legal expert.
New research from the University of Adelaide has found SMSFs outperformed APRA funds by more than 4 per cent in 2021–22.
The SMSF Association has made a number of policy recommendations for the superannuation sector in its pre-budget submission to the government.