Financial Standard Comments - Unions, AIST hit back at Abbott comments

Comment by Jason M ()

Jason M () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:08:06 +1100

Ah yes but Tony Abbort is so right.

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by MichaelM in New Greenland (ex Tas) ()

MichaelM in New Greenland (ex Tas) () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:24:49 +1100

Did the Hesta trustee act in the best interests of the members when changing insurers to delete TPD insurance cover? Other cases exist where a change of, insurers or, a fund by successor fund, have been diluted insurances. It is fine to express a difference of opinion however if there is work do be done in one's own back yard, this should attended to before spending time in others.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Chris Briant ()

Chris Briant () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:30:09 +1100

This morning as a quick exercise, I tried to see who the Boards were for the Bank/AMP-owned super funds (i.e. the for-profit / retail sector). On the retail websites, only one disclosed who their Board was; even annual reports were generally hard to find (the latest one for one bank's super offering was over 4 years old). I then reviewed industry fund websites and found that all Boards were 100% disclosed, it was 100% clear who elected the Board, and all annual reports were up-to-date. I just think the retail funds have a bit more work to do on their corporate governance before throwing stones...

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Tony ()

Tony () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:31:44 +1100

This is another example of Abbott trying to take away from hard working Australians their retirement income, and he says he is not in the pockets of big bankers. I am sure plenty of people can remember the bad old days when superannuation was a privilage for the few, manly those in management positions and very few women being members. Leave our super alone Abbott.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Michael ()

Michael () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:58:23 +1100

The point he is making is absolutely true. What qualification does a union official have to run a super fund? It is the same structural flaw that dominates the Labor side of politics - what qualification do union officials have that guarantees them the majority of Labor seats in parliament? Good point Tony!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Brian ()

Brian () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:37:56 +1100

The truth is there are problems on both sides. The retail funds are set up for a commercial purpose and therefore, while they are more likely to have competent people, they are compromised by the selfish profit motive. In respect of industry funds it is fact that the view is that there are union officials who have less than the competence level needed to run a super fund and the union hacks (such as O'Connor and Reynolds) are unconvincing in trying to divert arguement away from this issue. The best thing Shorten and this inept government could do is require all super funds to have elections to ensure an equal representation of members from within the fund that has no conflict or vested interest. This would balance the sponsors interests (whether they be Commercial, Govt. Corporate or Union) with the members concerned.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by David ()

David () — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:00:11 +1100

Perhaps Abbott would prefer superannuation funds to be run by some of the "professionals" who are refugees from the likes of Lehman and for members to be a raw material for banks and others to exploit.. At least the current system for industry funds clearly places the focus on the interests of members.
And as for gravy trains, well a person who has been a politician for the time that Abbott has been one should know all about that. Maybe for his next overseas trip Abbott should run a cake stall at the local school to get his funding!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.