Many of the disclosure requirements imposed on superannuation funds have become a millstone that have not achieved their original objectives, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
In a submission to the Productivity Commission’s annual review of regulatory burdens on business, ASFA said that while it was satisfied that superannuation regulations had been optimised to protect members’ interests and benefits, it also believed there were a number of areas in which the current regulatory regime needed to be reviewed.
Looking at disclosure, the submission said that it had become a millstone and had not achieved many of its objectives, particularly with respect to the transfer of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, which had “arguably been counterproductive for the superannuation industry and has involved super funds in excessive compliance costs”.
The submission then went on to list other examples of what it described as “deadweight compliance costs” including paper-based communications, particularly annual reports, the amount of resources required to undertake the annual Australian Prudential Regulation Authority reporting process, breach reporting across all regulators and complex contribution rules.
The ASFA submission also pointed to tax and prudential law inconsistency.
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.