Posting on LinkedIn last week, Lifestyle Solutions Financial Planning adviser Daniel Boce detailed an experience with Vision Super, alleging the fund denied his Philippines-based administration assistant’s request for client information.
The adviser alleged that, when he called the fund to inquire into its policy and procedure for offshore calls, he was told that anyone calling up with a “non-Australian accent” would be denied client information.
Speaking with ifa, Boce said he was informed by the fund that accents are used among a number of other techniques to ensure a request is coming from Australia.
“He just said, ‘that’s just the way it is’. They think that Vision Super has a liability issue if they release information to an offshore facility that then gets hacked,” Boce said.
Financial advice firms are increasingly turning to outsourcing for their admin processes in order to, as Boce noted, keep costs down and streamline their processes.
Having an adviser perform this admin, including making contact with a fund, would only drag out the process and defeat the purpose of hiring an assistant in the first place, he said.
“That’s why we have assistants, so that we can get these things done quicker.”
On Vision Super’s side, the policy is simply tailored to meet the fund’s member privacy obligations.
“Vision Super is committed to complying with the Privacy Act 1988,” a spokesperson told ifa.
“Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 8 outlines that before disclosing personal information to an overseas recipient, reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the recipient does not breach the APPs in relation to that information.
“To uphold these obligations, we have a standard operating procedure for all third-party authority (TPA) interactions.”
According to the fund, which merged with Active Super earlier this year and has around $30 billion in funds under management, the way it handles calls is not out of the ordinary and, put simply, it does not provide member information to anyone not within Australia.
“Our Member Services team must verify the identity of the caller, the member in question, and the caller’s location (onshore or offshore) for every enquiry. This is not based on an individual’s accent, the procedure is every call, every time,” they said.
“If a caller confirms they are located offshore, Vision Super requests that a member of their onshore team contact us to complete the account-related discussion.”
The Vision Super spokesperson added that the fund had seen instances of offshore team members pretending to be located in Australia to get around the policy, however, they did not suggest this was the case during the call with Boce’s assistant.
Additionally, while the spokesperson was adamant that accents don’t play a role in its offshore policy, they were unable to confirm nor deny that this specific incident occurred.
Additionally, while the fund detailed the need to ensure member privacy, Boce argued that there are a range of options other funds and platforms utilise that don’t impede the ability of advice practices to offshore some functions.
“BT Panorama, a couple others, require that if you’ve got offshore staff, they want a couple of signed forms confirming what they’ve got in place for security and all that sort of stuff,” he said.
“I’ve got no issue with that, because they’re not saying they’re not going to provide the information. They’re just wanting to confirm what security [the assistant] has on their machine and what the processes are.
“I think a couple other funds will only have a two-factor authentication go through to your phone. So, the PA might ring up, two-factor authentication goes through to your phone to confirm that it is actually you releasing it to your PA. Again, no issue with that all because not hindering, it’s protection. But [Vision] is just pure, no offshore.”
Security within the super fund sector has faced heightened scrutiny on the back of a spate of incidents in recent months. Namely, in early April, several big funds sounded the alarm after a surge of suspicious login attempts on their websites.
Union super funds have always used administrative hurdles and barriers to make it difficult for their members to access third party assistance with their super. This sounds like yet another blocking technique.
Union funds see every third party adviser as a potential withdrawal/rollover threat. They really don’t care that the adviser is often just trying to help the client with things like contribution strategy or asset allocation or insurance. Union funds are far more concerned about FUM retention than the best interests of their members.
10000000000 % CORRECT
No issue with Vision Super having a policy of not sending information to an Offshore email address or releasing to an Offshore phone number. BUT, Vision Super could easily confirm to the Overseas p.a that the information requested will instead be sent to the client or the Financial Planner. But instead, Vision Super refuse to acknowledge the Offshore staff member, and force the Adviser to contact them.
Not a well thought out policy, not a well thought approach…but then, it is Vision Super.
I guess by that same policy, no adviser will be given information if the Adviser is on holiday in the UK? Or a p.a working from the UK, or even NZ will be allowed information either? Just stirring the pot 😉
Hi Daniel, Does your offshore provider have their own Australian Privacy Act ISO certification? I know the one we used to use did and their head office was actually based here in Australia. Would be interesting to know what Vision Super’s response to this would be
The provision of personal data to an overseas company is covered in the Privacy Act. Denying access to someone because of their accent is a bit of a weak defence and I’m guessing the person at Vision Super isn’t aware of the privacy provisions that restrict and limit data being shared with overseas companies. The Australian Advisor needs to have the same policy in place and satisfy Australian laws.
There needs to be a policy same as or equal to Australian law on how personal data is shared and protected.
Visions Privacy policy.
“Vision Super requires all our domestic external service providers/contractors, such as facilities management, actuaries, underwriting specialists, medical consultants, printing, mailing and other professional advisers, to comply with the Privacy Act 1988 and Vision Super’s privacy policy. When Vision Super engages external service providers/contractors that are based overseas, and the external service provider/contractor does not have an Australian base for operations, we make all reasonable efforts to ensure that adequate privacy measures are in place (or put in place) for handling your information. Vision Super does not transfer personal information to third parties unless at least one of the following conditions applies:
We are sure the third party is subject to legal obligations substantially similar to the Australian Privacy Principles
You consent to the disclosure of your personal information
The transfer is necessary to comply with a contractual obligation with you or a third party, and the contract was entered into in your interest
The transfer is for your benefit but in a situation where it is impracticable to obtain your consent, it is likely that you would consent to the transfer of your personal information.”
so, my Nepalese employees along with a previous Bulgarian won’t be suitable to ring Vision?
Weren’t the human rights commission Australia touting for business?