Energy Super has announced a significant restructure to its board, with the departure of four directors and the appointments of Scott Wilson and Mark Williamson.
The four directors who will be leaving the board are Winston Hughes, Walter Trelfall, Wayne Price and Sarah Israel.
The restructure will leave the board with 10 members, but it will reduce member numbers to eight by 2014, according to Energy Super chairman Bob Henricks.
"While outgoing [board] members should be commended for their many contributions over the years, reducing the board is required to maximise our service to members," Henricks said.
The proposed Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) prudential standards were not the reason behind the board changes, Henricks said - although he added that the board did have them in mind.
Henricks is the only member of the board who is also on another superannuation board - he also chairs the Aust(Q) board. He said he realised that under the APRA prudential standards he would eventually have to leave one of the boards.
"Conflicts of interest are going to have to be managed pretty solidly going forward, and I'm confident we can fit in with those requirements," Henricks said.
Energy Super would also be prepared for the various board committees that will be required under the APRA prudential standards, he added.
"We've always had very active committees on our board … we are about to put forward a proposal that we have an expert from outside sitting on certain committees. That'll please APRA," Henricks 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.