The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has backed the fact that, under the new Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), superannuation disputes will be dealt with under a user-pays model.
What is more, the regulator has claimed this will incentivise superannuation funds to behave better.
In a submission filed with the Senate Economic References Committee inquiry into the legislation establishing AFCA, ASIC made clear its agenda in supporting including the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal within the new one-stop-shop external disputes resolution (EDR) regime.
Looking at superannuation funds having to adopt a user pays model, the ASIC submission stated: “We think this will provide both incentives for superannuation funds to more effectively manage disputes at both internal dispute resolution and EDR, and a stronger funding base for effective superannuation dispute resolution in the future”.
The ASIC position stands in contrast with that of many superannuation groups which have argued for the retention of the SCT and have noted that the Tribunal, which comes under the umbrella of ASIC for Budget purposes, had suffered from under-funding.
Continuing its theme of supporting superannuation being included in the new AFCA set-up, the ASIC submission added that there would be a capacity for the superannuation industry to be represented on the Board of AFCA “and where appropriate on decision-making panels”.
The super fund has significantly grown its membership following the inclusion of Zurich’s OneCare Super policyholders.
Super balances have continued to rise in August, with research showing Australian funds have maintained strong momentum, delivering steady gains for members.
Australian Retirement Trust and State Street Investment Management have entered a partnership to deliver global investment insights and practice strategies to Australian advisers.
CPA Australia is pressing the federal government to impose stricter rules on the naming and marketing of managed investment and superannuation products that claim to be “sustainable”, “ethical”, or “responsible”, warning that vague or untested claims are leaving investors exposed.