A shift to a “once only” default superannuation system will spark a battle for new starters, particularly an increase in direct competition, but will also impact the costs of acquisition per member for each fund, according to AustralianSuper.
In a submission to the Productivity Commission (PC) on competitiveness and efficiency of super, the industry fund said that while the increase in competition could deliver member benefits, and that it would impact system costs, the advantage of a “once only” default must be balanced by:
The submission also noted that “first timer default” system decision for employees had a danger of employees defaulting into a poor performing fund and member disengagement could be perpetuated.
“Research indicates that the majority of first time job starters do not actively choose their own superannuation fund. If members continue to be disengaged this default has lifelong implications and potentially more damaging than current shortcomings of the system,” the submission said.
“Consequently, it is essential that there is a significantly rigorous selection process for eligible default funds based on long term net investment performance.”
AustralianSuper said issues that would need to be addressed were:
AustralianSuper also urged the PC to conduct a full cost benefit analysis of any recommendation to understand and assess the costs, benefits, and risks associated with any alternative default arrangement.
It said that any change to the current default arrangements should only be undertaken when there was confidence that the changed system would work better for defaulting members.
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.