Super fund members on parental leave or taking a break from work have just five more days to ensure their insurance inside super isn’t unintentionally cut from their inactive accounts, with Industry Super Australia (ISA) urging them to contact their super funds and check if they will be affected.
From next Monday (1 July), the Government’s Protecting Your Super package would see the cancellation of insurance attached to super accounts that had been inactive for 16 months or more, and while super funds themselves were contacting impacted members, many were concerned that low member engagement with fund communications would see some consumers unwittingly losing group cover.
“With only five days to go until the changes kick in, this is one of those times people really need to think about their super and not throw the letter from their fund straight in the bin, or mark the email as spam,” ISA chief executive, Bernie Dean, said.
“Straightening it out is easy – if you decide you do want to continue the insurance cover, just let your super fund know.
“If you’re worried or don’t know if you’ll be affected give your super fund a call. With only five days to go until 1 July it’s vital people get engaged with their super now and don’t put it off to another day.”
Alongside the insurance change, 1 July would also see the automatic consolidation of all low balance ($6,000 or less) accounts and inactive accounts would transferred to the Australian Taxation Office as part of the Morrison Government’s package.
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.