Australia's major superannuation funds now rival the major banks in assets and influence on savings and should therefore be treated as such from a regulatory perspective, according to a senior Federal Opposition spokesman, Tasmanian Liberal Senator, David Bushby.
Bushby used a recent address to claim that despite superannuation funds growing to stand alongside the major banks, funds continued to enjoy significant regulatory advantages.
At the same time, Bushby signaled that this was something that was likely to be addressed by a future Coalition Government via a broader review of the financial services sector undertaken in a similar vein to the Wallis Review.
"During the 15 years of post-Wallis finance sector operations, there has been very substantial growth in the industry superannuation funds and self-managed super funds — and post the Rudd/Gillard reforms, the great bulk of Superannuation Guarantee funds have flowed into these two areas with little competitive pressures, via Fair Work Australia mandates," he said.
"The large super funds now rival the major banks in assets and influence on savings and investments — yet they enjoy significant regulatory competitive advantages when it comes to capital requirements and disclosure," Bushby said.
"As they are such an increasingly important part of our financial system, it is vital that a big picture analysis of that system considers how super funds should fit into the regulatory framework in the best interests of all Australians."
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.