In an exclusive interview with ifa, Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos said the government was aware of the connections between some labour movement organisations such as trade unions and industry superannuation funds, claiming this link is one issue underpinning its proposals regarding super fund governance requirements.
“[This is why] we took a policy to the election around adopting ASX governance-type principles in these funds,” Mr Sinodinos said. “Making super funds more like corporates will help to flush out some of the connections and networks that sit behind that.”
However, the senator said this was not a party-political position, but rather a policy in line with the recommendation of the Howard government’s Cooper Review to introduce more independence for super fund boards.
“This is not about ‘getting’ anyone – the unions or anyone else – it is about creating a more level playing field, so that ultimately the members have more of an idea of who is running what and in whose name,” he said.
The comments follow a speech given to parliament in June by Coalition MP Paul Fletcher – now parliamentary secretary to communications minister Malcolm Turnbull – in which he argued Labor’s Fair Work Australia commission exacerbated union connections with industry super under the term of the previous government.
Wildcat….I’ll conclude ‘Its a duck’
Additionally whilst commissions are a crime against humanity according to the ISN, they use “above the line” costs (before profit) to fund their own “free advisers”.
How is this different substantially to commissions. Yes they may be salary but the investment is still paying them and they will also get bonuses…for what I wonder? More FUM in the ISN perhaps?
But that’s not a commission either I suppose???
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck….
I firmly believe that the law should apply equally. Why these labour party stooges in the unions have an exemption from the law is not only a crime but it is obvious corruption at all levels. The law should be equal without fear or favour.
Think someone needs to be less selective as to what has been suggested. Advantage comes in many forms as well as cash. I suggest it is far easier to see and understand the connections with public companies and the management of the employee funds than it is for the ISFN and the Union movement. Sure most don’t miss the point of the marketing statements that all profits go back to members. We should be more concerned as to what happens before profit is even derived. Not all are taken in by marketing and lobbying efforts of the ISFN but they can claim at least one success. People are certainly entitled to believe Pixies live at the bottom of the garden.
the senator claimed his position was only about the independence for Super Boards and my comments relate to that issue. Not sure where your information comes from about Unions receiving money directly from Super funds other than from Board fees like all Board members, but if you have the proof provide it to APRA. On independence how can a company super fund such as QANTAS have an independent Board, each member would be an employee of the company. i have no issue with independent Board provided it is applied across all sectors of the industry. By the way does a SMSF require and independent company to be the trustee don’t think so. This is simply a political attack so why not own up to it rather than trying to disguise it. The one point we are all missing is Industry Super funds return all profits to their members unlike retail/ bank funds who distribute it to shareholders as well.
I’m happy for greater scrutiny on ISFN given they have made extensive mileage out of their ‘holier than thou’ approach while maintaining spurious and undisclosed links with the Union Movement. Given BHP and Quantas are public companies, the ability to glean advantage from their superannuation involvement (as the Union movement does from the ISFN) is doubtful given reporting standards. Not sure we will see a revenue entry in the financial accounts of BHP and Qantas from employee super. Same cant be said for the Union movement but we would never know under the current arrangements.
If the industry is to be seen and actually be “clean”, ALL participates must be turned inside out and flushed, not just the advisory participants. while I am at it–are bank planners listed yet on asic web site or do they still hide under the bank umbrella. One rule for everyone and lets see the outcome.
I am very interested in the Ass Treasurers comments. I see no mention of flushing out the employer bodies who are running and controlling superannuation funds. Lets think about independence and apply that to say BHP Super or QANTAS Super, what action is the Government planning in these cases or is it just Industry Funds. If they want real independence then allow members to elect their own Board each three years, not sure many employer associations would be happy.