The expenditure of the $467 million SuperStream levy announced in the Federal Budget must be open and transparent, according to the Financial Services Council.
The $467 million levy will take place over seven years, with $121.5 million due to be levied in the 2012-13 financial year.
In a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee, the Financial Services Council confirmed its support for the two key measures in the SuperStream reforms: the consolidation of multiple superannuation accounts; and the standardisation of processes and transactions.
While the Financial Services Council accepted the need for the levy, it argued that the Australian Taxation Office, as the principal expender of monies, should be required to table a detailed breakdown of the costs for the two policy measures.
"There is not yet any discourse of how monies will be allocated between expenditure versus ongoing costs," said the submission.
There should be regular reporting to the SuperStream Advisory Council on expenditure, and the levy should be applied in a manner consistent with APRA's existing rules on levying superannuation funds, the Financial Services Council said.
In addition to the levy, the Financial Services Council said its members would incur capital costs of around $250 million related to the implementation of SuperStream.
"We believe this to be a conservative figure. It does not include costs related to member communications and product administration, and is based on a survey of efficient superannuation entities with high technology costs," the submission said.
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.