Yesterday, the financial services lobby group lodged an application for relief in the Federal Court of Australia to challenge the validity of the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC’s) procedure for the selection of default super funds in modern awards.
ISA has been named as first respondent and will oppose the FSC’s application and defend the FWC’s role in the MySuper selection process, indicating that the war of words between the two organisations over recent weeks will now be heard by the Federal Court.
“We are seeking a hearing from the full Federal Court to ensure that any uncertainty on the validity of the Expert Panel will be clarified once and for all,” said FSC chief executive John Brogden.
An affidavit issued by Ashurst lawyer Stephen Woodbury in support of the FSC’s application explains that it is the “applicant’s contention that the reconstituted Expert Panel is not constituted as required by the provisions of the [Fair Work Act]”.
A letter from ISA’s lawyer, Heidi Fairhall of Holding Redlich, explains that the industry funds lobbyist “advised [the FSC] that it did not object to being named as the first respondent in these proceedings”.
The hearing is set for May 9.
Not sure ISA can continue to suggest their rebaded default options into a MySuper product are now the lowest? In fact one can probably exclude SuperRatings (Jeffs) findings as they always neglect to analyse on median member demographics. Indeed, ISA sponsor fund’s tend to charge more given they then to manage smaller average balance. Moreover, I’m curious as to why major industry funds like Aust Super ICR hasn’t come down given the massive increase in scale (FUM)? Competition will not only leads real price pressure but also innovation.
Anne, your comments are dated and sophomoric. And judging from your outrage and indignation, you’ve been sheltered from public scrutiny and real competition for far too long. Time to toughen-up. The general public (including your own clients) are finally waking-up to the ISAs unique brand of biases and conflicts.
Anne, the party is over and I suspect you know it. So either learn to compete in a positive and professional manner, or please move on.
Let me get this right. The group representing planners who get commission payments and refuse to act in their clients’ best interests, but will put their own first, are going to court to make sure that they get even more access to employee super? If FSC wins employees can expect to pay higher fees, have more taken out of their super by “planners” and pushed into more high fee products sold by the planner group’s parent. In the end, less super at retirement.