Australia's largest superannuation fund, AustralianSuper, believes the Government has failed to answer key concerns around the objective of superannuation and has urged the Senate Economics Committee to take account of those issues.
The fund had gone to the trouble of this week filing a submission as part of the committee's review of the Government's Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 arguing that concerns raised with the Government have not been addressed.
Pointing to earlier submissions it had made to the Financial Systems Inquiry and to the Treasury's exposure draft legislative consultation, it said the concerns it had raised had gone unanswered.
"The concerns raised in these submissions on the objective of superannuation remain unanswered by the introduction of the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 into Parliament," it said.
"Accordingly, AustralianSuper requests that the Committee consider the issues raised in both of these submissions."
Those submissions said that AustralianSuper was of the view that any objective of the ‘superannuation system' should include a benchmark that is relevant to individuals in retirement, "be that a dignified retirement, an adequate, modest, or even comfortable retirement".
"If this fundamental outcome of the system is not mentioned, it is difficult to see how the system can be assessed as meeting its objective," the submissions said.
The AustralianSuper submission is strongly supportive of the arguments also being pursued by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
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.