A submission to a Parliamentary Committee reviewing the Government’s controversial Your Future, Your Super legislation has revealed a significant oversight – the legislation allows for employers to be informed of a new employee’s stapled superannuation, but not employees themselves.
The issue has been raised by the inspector general of taxation and Tax Ombudsman which has noted that while the legislation allows an employer to request that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) identify any stapled fund for an employee, it does allow the employee the same privilege.
“We note that in accordance with section 32R of the bill, an employer (or their agent) may request the [Tax] Commissioner identify any stapled fund for an employee. However, it is not clear what process an employee should follow to identify their own stapled fund,” the submission said.
“When an employee commences at a new place of employment, they are requested to provide to the employer their choice of fund, or have their super paid into their stapled fund,” it said.
“In some situations, the employee may not necessarily recollect any funds of which they may be a member (arising from past employment) or any stapled funds relevant to them, which renders the making of informed decisions difficult.
“We therefore believe it would be beneficial for informational accuracy and improved tax administration if there was an easy and accessible way for employees to identify their own stapled fund – whether in the regulations, legislative instrument or other tax administration processes.”
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.