Superannuation funds and other players within the financial services industry should not have to pay for the regulatory activities of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
In a submission to the government body, ASFA has restated its opposition to the Government imposing a levy on super funds to cover AUSTRAC.
ASFA has sought to gain clarity around the degree to which superannuation funds will be impacted by a levy to fund AUSTRAC.
It said it had sought clarity in previous submissions for the basis on which the so-called “large entity” component of the levy would be applied to superannuation funds.
Clarity was required around whether a fund’s liability for the large entity component was based on EBITDA (earnings before income tax expense, net financing costs, depreciation and amortisation) of the trustee, not the trust (ie, the superannuation fund), according to ASFA.
ASFA said that in previous submissions to AUSTRAC it had “expressed our strong opposition to the Government’s policy to recover AUSTRAC’s regulatory costs from reporting entities”.
“We do not intend to restate the reasons behind ASFA’s position again in this submission. However we feel it is appropriate to draw your attention to these prior submissions which contain, in detail, the reasons behind our objections to the AUSTRAC levy,” it said.
ASFA had previously stated it did not believe the industry should wear the cost of funding AUSTRAC because it is Government, not the industry, which benefits from the resultant activities.
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.