The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) should remain independent from Government and the regulators, according to Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) chief executive Pauline Vamos.
Speaking at a Super Review breakfast event this morning, Vamos said that while there was a regulatory gap in the case of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the SCT as a consumer representative body should remain a separate entity.
Vamos said that between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the SCT, the dispute resolution process had become “murky” but that, despite a Senate enquiry, the process should not involve the regulators.
“I have a view that a dispute resolution process for consumers must be as independent as possible from the regulator - they’re different roles,” she said.
Vamos said however that the superannuation industry was required to adhere to the requirements of two regulatory bodies, which was not only onerous but included a lot of overlap.
Super funds had different disclosure requirements and paid multiple levies, creating duplication in the system which needed to be assessed.
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.