The Federal Government has moved to align data and payments standards for retirement savings accounts (RSAs) with other Stronger Super legislation.
It has registered the Retirement Savings and Related Legislation Amendment Regulation which sets data and payments standards for RSA providers and entities exchanging payments and information.
Treasury said the regulation was similar to regulations for data and payments standards applying to super entities set out in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 5), with some significant differences.
As employees choose their RSA provider, an employer is not required to give the RSA provider initial registration, as these details would be conveyed by the employee to the employer.
An RSA provider does not need to validate initial registration information or establish a process to deal with invalid registrations, Treasury said.
It also advised that some of the provisions applying to super funds were not included due to the different structure and nature of investment processes of RSAs.
"Nonetheless, the broad intention is that the Regulation will replicate, and achieve the same outcome as, the amendments made by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 5) which sets data and payment standards for superannuation entities," it said.
Treasury also advised some minor wording changes to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SISR 1994) contained within the regulation.
It said an extensive consultation period also involved the SuperStream Working Group.
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.