Only two industry superannuation funds have been the subject of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) infringement notices over the past five years with the total combined penalties amounting to less than $25,000.
Hostplus was this year issued with an infringement notice amounting to $12,600 over alleged misleading claims around “independent advice” while in 2013 Media Super paid $10,200 after it was found to have produced potentially misleading advertisements when comparing Media Super funds to self-managed superannuation funds.
Answering a question on notice from Senate Estimates, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) confirmed that Hostplus and Media Super were the only funds to have been dealt with and listed on the regulator’s Infringement Notice Register.
The chair of the Senate Economics Committee, Tim Wilson had specifically asked the chair of ASIC, James Shipton the accumulated total of ASIC fines on industry superannuation funds.
As part of its answer, ASIC pointed out that infringement notices were not specifically enforceable by the regulator.
“An infringement notice is not the same as a fine because there is no requirement to pay the amount stated in the infringement notice and, if the relevant entity does not pay the infringement notice, ASIC cannot enforce the infringement notice,” it said.
“The consequence of not responding and paying the infringement notice amount is the prospect of court action in relation to the conduct the infringement notice was originally trying to address.”
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.