The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has rejected the Government’s superannuation reforms as it believes they will leave workers worse off and erode retirement savings.
The ACTU said current benchmarking proposals excluded member administration fees that would leave to Government proposals “misleading workers into thinking they are members of a well-performing super fund”.
“This is an attack based on ideology, rather than the best interests of workers as those in industry funds can expect to retire, on average, with a larger balance at retirement due to better performance and lower fees,” it said.
“Extraordinarily, the Government’s proposals also seek to grant the relevant minister the authority to deem any expense, investment, or activity, by any fund, at any time, illegal.
“Funds would be beholden to a single minister’s preference as the minister is not required to give notice nor reason, and these regulations are not able to be challenged in court.”
On the stapling proposal, ACTU assistant secretary, Scott Connolly, said a super member could be locked into an underperforming for-profit fund that “is funnelling money to shareholders through exorbitant administration fees – and be misled by the Government that they are in a good fund”.
Connolly said the exposure draft legislation represented an “attack” on working people, their retirement savings, and the “best-performing and best-governed superannuation funds”.
“The Federal Government’s reforms to superannuation will slash workers hard won retirement savings and should be completed rejected,” he said.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.