The primary criteria for the selection of default superannuation funds under modern awards should be long-term net returns, according to the Industry Super Network.
In a submission to the Productivity Commission, the Industry Super Network called for a "competitive, open and transparent approach" to the selection of default funds, and proposed a role for Fair Work Australia in the process.
Members of Fair Work Australia should be joined by "a panel of recognised superannuation experts to assist in such deliberations", said the Industry Super Network.
"Each application from an eligible fund should be considered in the context of the relevant award and the industry it serves," said the Industry Super Network.
"FWA should consider the views of the representatives of those who pay (employers) and those who receive superannuation payments (employees) and the ability of the fund to provide relevant members and employer services to potential members covered by the relevant award, including the appropriateness of the insurance offering for that demographic," said the Industry Super Network.
The Industry Super Network also recommended that a typical modern award should have a minimum of two and a maximum of six default funds, since doing so "will ensure that employers are not overloaded by choice and that employees are protected by having more than one option to rely on".
Funds that 'flip' their members into higher priced MySuper products should not be eligible to be named as a default fund in a modern award, added the Industry Super Network.
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.