ISA urges government to keep super safety netBY ALEX BURKE | FRIDAY, 24 APR 2015 12:40PMIndustry Super Australia has called for the super safety net to be retained, arguing that scrapping it would collectively cost employers $1.8 billion. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Australia, UK partner to procure well-regulated financial markets
Following its inaugural meeting in September 2025, the second UK-Australia Joint Financial Regulatory Forum took place this week, with Australia remaining vocal about placing greater emphasis on governance and asset valuation of private markets.
Count takes 30% stake in Brisbane advice firm
Count has agreed to acquire a 30% stake in Brisbane-based accounting and financial advice firm Apiary Financial, continuing its push to expand its equity partnership network while reporting stronger first-quarter earnings.
Audit quality continues to fall short: ASIC
The corporate regulator has called for improvements in audit quality and financial reporting after its latest surveillance found companies, including superannuation funds, are still not getting the fundamentals right.
ETFs entering 3.0 era: JPMAM
JPMAM believes thematic ETFs may become a thing of the past as actively managed ETFs become more prevalent.
Further Reading
Products
Expert Feed
Featured Profile

Jacqueline Fernley
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ARC POINT OCIO PTY LTD
ARC POINT OCIO PTY LTD
Jacqueline Fernley is a self-confessed nerd, a market animal and as of this year, her own boss. Riddhima Talwani writes.







The fact that it is referred to as a safety net is half the problem - it should be called what it is, red tape and an anti-competitive loophole.
"More than eight million Australians don't choose their own super fund and rely on their employer to place them in a high performing fund. These funds are selected in a merit-based process overseen by the Fair Work Commission," said the ISA chief executive.
Are you kidding me? Under what basis are employers making judgement calls on "a high performing fund"? And under what basis is that employer responsible if the expectation on performance is not achieved?
Does this mean that employers are assuming that past performance is an indicator of future performance?
What a load of rubbish. It's all about the unions, nothing else.
Now, pardon me but I just have to get to my Corporate Box at the MCG tonight as a guest of an industry super fund ....run only to profit members don't forget.
This regime is anti-competitive and not in the best interests of consumers. ISA has the attitude that "big brother knows best". ISA should have to compete in the open market and not be provided with a tied stream of members. Let's see how they perform when it is a level playing field.