The motion passed in the Senate on Monday, has called on the public broadcaster to respond to questions placed on notice at Senate Estimates during the appearance of ABC managing director David Anderson, regarding the commercial relationship between the two media outlets.
Mr Anderson had already told the Senate in November that he would disclose the revenue ABC gained from the deal.
Liberal Senator James Paterson moved the motion on Monday at the request of Andrew Bragg, a fellow Coalition senator and former FSC (Financial Services Council) policy director, who has also been a staunch opponent of the industry super segment.
Federal Coalition politicians, including Mr Bragg and MP Tim Wilson, have previously pressed Industry Super Holdings on its ownership of the New Daily, accusing the company owned by 27 super funds of sinking workers’ retirement savings into a “propaganda outfit”.
The backing of the New Daily has been argued to violate superannuation funds’ sole purpose test, which requires funds to invest members’ money for the sole purpose of maximising their retirement benefits.
The motion in the Senate noted the “New Daily has been funded out of compulsory retirement savings arising from superannuation guarantee contributions” and super trustees should be complying with the sole purpose test.
“The existing fiduciary duty which applies to super funds should prohibit this sort of waste but it has not,” Mr Bragg said.
“The new law proposed in the last budget will certainly prohibit this waste of workers’ money.”
The government’s Your Future Super draft legislation referred to by the senator has proposed requiring trustees to disclose expenditure and prove it has been made in members’ best interests.
Under the framework, trustees could face civil penalties, which could escalate to criminal punishments where intentions are deemed dishonest or fraudulent.
Mr Bragg also expressed concern in a statement that the New Daily content-sharing arrangement would impact the ABC’s reporting on superannuation.
The Monday motion stated information on the arrangements was important to ensure that the ABC’s editorial independence, balance and fairness had not been compromised by any commercial agreements with the New Daily.
“Despite the ABC being prohibited from advertising, it is taking money from a highly dubious outlet which uses workers’ super to attack critics of super and political opponents,” Mr Bragg declared.
This is about a ‘Trumpian’ as it gets here. What a sham.
This should be banned by ASIC. However, most of the outrage in the comments is just parroting what your licensees say. Why don’t you have the same outrage as to why many retail super funds charge admin fees of 0.5%+ and then have their own high fee in-house investments……..
Bank Vertical Integration is almost fully disappeared post RC.
Industry Super are doing their best to take over the Old Bank Conflicted Vertically Integrated advice model, with both Hidden Commissions and massive Fees for No Service.
The same disastrous problems just under different management.
You mean like the Industry Funds are now increasingly doing via IFM?
A rotten fish smell about this…Where are ASIC, Mr Hayne and 4 corners now?
So my taxes going to the funding of the ABC are being used so they can set up commercial arrangements with an organisation that I have no allegiance with whatsoever and do not agree with their model.
If this was an organisation that was privately or shareholder funded, then those shareholders would have a say at the AGM as to how the company’s money was being spent.
We are all compulsory shareholders of the ABC but do not have any say.
It appears the ABC are striking an arrangement with an organisation they believe represents their own beliefs and ideals. This is not independent and not unbiased.
It is always sad when those who claim to work from higher ideals are exposed for what they really do.
No surprise the ABC are involved with this lot really.
A commercial relationship between the taxpayer funded ABC and The New Daily…..wow !
What are the parameters of the arrangement and what benefits do each party receive from the arrangement ?
Why has a taxpayer funded organisation been allowed to have this relationship?
Does the ABC charter allow for commercial relationships to exist ?
If so, doesn’t this place a large question over bias and conflicts of interest ?
I cant wait for this information to be provided.
The ABC came out swinging when accused of being biased.
If you watch and listen enough to ABC and you will pick up on the clever ways they subliminally introduce bias.
Most of the presenters think they are very clever in the way they go about this, but it becomes obvious where their allegiances truly are.
Move right along, NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS.
Industry Super can do whatever the hell they like.
– Vertical Integration sales of only their own in house products.
– Hidden Commission’s charged to Every Member to pay for Intra Fund & Call Centre Unqualified Sales of only their in house products
– Massive Fees for No Service to majority of members that don’t get Advice / Sales.
– Life Insurance Commissions on massive scale Non Disclosed.
– Industry Super Propaganda news paid for by super members balances.
APRA and ASIC total Regulatory Capture Corruption will never do anything against Industry Super.
Disgusting Corruption !!!!