The issue I see is APRA's interpretation of what makes a person independent because each person will have a past history which will influence their decision-making processes. We all carry some baggage from our past whether we come from the employer or employee side, so can anyone be truly independent?

Surely it should be about what skills and abilities a person has rather than are they are 'independent'. By adding independent trustees to the board aren't we just adding to the cost, yet APRA also say that's a major issue? So which is it?

The decision to merge or close a fund should sit with the members and in fact it does. If a member is unhappy they can move to another Fund or is APRA saying members do not understand?

If that's the case why not spend money educating Australians of their rights instead of lecturing funds that they should make the decision without even consulting their members?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.