Consumer group, Super Consumers Australia (SCA) has backed amendments to the Government’s Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members’ Interests First) Bill which would exempt workers in dangerous occupations.
The SCA, and offshoot of consumer group, Choice, noted that it had written to all cross-bench senators stating its support for the Government’s bill and urging them to be wary of claims being made regarding occupation and industry risk in the absence of any supporting data or evidence.
It recommended that if senators were contemplating exemptions or carve-outs, that fund trustees should be required to demonstrate that insurance would be in the best interests of a specific cohort, including data on dependents and the availability of existing public compensation and support schemes.
However, it said today that it supported a Government amendment which allowed trustees to exempt emergency service workers, or to seek an actuarial certificate to exempt certain dangerous occupations from the “riskiest quartile” of Australian occupations.
It said it also backed an amendment from Tasmanian independent Senator, Jacqui Lambie which would oblige fund trustees to request and store information on whether a fund member had dependent children.
Super funds had a “tremendous month” in November, according to new data.
Australia faces a decade of deficits, with the sum of deficits over the next four years expected to overshoot forecasts by $21.8 billion.
APRA has raised an alarm about gaps in how superannuation trustees are managing the risks associated with unlisted assets, after releasing the findings of its latest review.
Compared to how funds were allocated to March this year, industry super funds have slightly decreased their allocation to infrastructure in the six months to September – dropping from 11 per cent to 10.6 per cent, according to the latest APRA data.
Stop the rot. This mob doesn't represent consumers. I work for a not for profit on the front line helping people every single day of my life who are able to survive because of their disability insurance in their superannuation. Their suggestion "to be wary of claims being made regarding occupation and industry risk in the absence of any suporting data or evidence" is foul.
Do they dispute that people in physical jobs suffer more jobs than office workers. Get real. This mob doesn't understand a thing about the importance of insurance in super. They can come and explain to me and every other welfare worker I speak with everyday why removing a safety net at any level like this should be supported. They might learn something. Or do we live in a world now where calling yourself a consumer organisation means you're actually middle class and educated and your job is more about status than substance.
Get into the real world.