Last week, the Senate committee report — the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 — outlined proposed disclosure agreements for the Future Fund, including that it be exempt from disclosing asset prices so it not be hindered when competing in global markets.
The report states that “the partial exemption from the operation of the FOI Act will reduce the risk of disclosing ‘highly sensitive commercial and proprietary material’”; however, proposed disclosure regulations for super funds do not provide this exemption.
The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) has called for the government to be consistent, arguing that portfolio holdings disclosure obligations be mandatory across the board, with CEO Eva Scheerlinck slamming the recommendation as “nonsensical” and “inconsistent”.
“Just like the Future Fund, Australian super funds must be able to compete on a level playing field with global institutional investors who generally aren’t required to disclose commercially sensitive information,” Ms Scheerlinck said.
“Forcing super funds to disclose such information will put them at a significant disadvantage to their competitors and compromise their ability to deliver the best investment returns for members which they do by investing in job-creating initiatives in Australia and supporting the ongoing health of the Australian economy.”
The Labor and Greens Party also both criticised the recommendation in the report, with Labor calling out the “hypocrisy” of the government.
“The hypocrisy of the government in granting the Future Fund an exemption from public disclosure on one hand but requiring public disclosure of superannuation funds on the other hand is stark, and is yet another demonstration of the government’s hatred of the superannuation system,” senator Tim Ayres wrote.
“Ensuring that the Future Fund is able to conduct its commercial operations in a way to maximise the Fund’s returns, and through that the various investment funds the Fund is responsible, benefits all Australians.”
Greens senator Nick McKim added: “Apparently, the application of Australia’s FOI laws to the Future Fund are the weak link for global investment managers that might lead to market-sensitive information being released and everyone losing their money.
“Which, of course, is bunkum.”
Of course the government wants to be able to hide what the future fund is doing so they can instruct it to prop up their mates including the failing fossil fuel industry.
The government owns the Future Fund and supervises it closely. That is different from other super funds who have many beneficiaries who should have transparency.
Mighty words from a group of funds that claimed for the last decade, that they only charged $1.50 per week in fees.
How many ex-abour MPs are sitting on the boards of industry super funds?
And ex-Union heavy weights / execs?
Every civilised nation needs accountability. Without accountability things go bad. Disclosure is needed for accountability. So is free speech, and the right to find fault.
We don’t need either industry super funds or future fund to implement retirement policy – all Australian dollars come from federal government – which can always provide an annuity to each citizen, just like what we already do with the Age Pension. As long the amount is set at a non-inflationary rate. Problem solved.
Let the government control it they said. What could possibly go wrong? The government struggles to manage its own budget, imagine what they would do to the super industry if they got their hands on it. As an example, google Qld Government raid super 2017.
Further, surely you realise that the aged pension isn’t based on contributions, so to say it is an annuity is a stretch.
We live in a liberal democracy where our Australian dollars are created from the social will of the people (votes) – we accept that the Age Pension has an important role to play to implement a sustainable retirement policy – this is akin to an annuity income stream as the Age Pension already functions – no interference required from political ideologies/superannuation. We want a retirement policy that is fair to all – not necessarily based on a person’s private wealth – the government rarely spends enough to the non-government sector in order for us to build up sufficient savings anyway. The key thing to recognise is inflation – as long as the social will of the people are able to provide the goods and services to those who receive the Age Pension income. We forget that it is retirement policy that we’re targeting, not financial products.
bring in National Sovereign Funds and remove the private financial advisers sector off – then there would be no need for all this rubbish we have to have , ASIC, ATO.. legislation.,..bloody nightmare.
How funny! The reason the super funds oppose having to disclose such info is that their overly optimistic valuations used to prop up the illusion that Industry Super Funds are the best investment managers in the universe may be questioned
very typical trade mark of the Morrison Government policy making is to take away transparency from anything it touches.