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
Early release of super scammers cop prison time
Three people will go to prison after pleading guilty to defrauding the COVID-19 early release of superannuation scheme for $103,500.
Super funds slash external mandates by 54%
The number of investment managers winning institutional mandates has tanked 54% in less than two years as superannuation funds ramp up the in-house management of assets, Rainmaker Information research reveals.
ASIC tells super funds to 'step it up'
ASIC commissioner Simone Constant delivered a stern warning to super fund trustees.
Brookfield bids for majority stake in Neoen
Brookfield and its institutional partners have lobbed a bid to acquire a 53% majority stake in French renewable energy company Neoen.
Further Reading
Sponsored by | Know the facts about lifetime annuitiesSaving for a happy retirement is Australia's #1 financial goal. Learn how LifeIncome can deliver more income, certainty, & choice. |
Products
Featured Profile
Jason Huljich
JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
A single decision can change your life, and that's exactly what Centuria Capital joint chief executive Jason Huljich learned when he came to Australia in the 1990s. Eliza Bavin 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.