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
Apostle taps former Platinum AM chief
|Apostle Funds Management has appointed a new chief executive following the departure of managing director Mitchell Gunman earlier this year.
LRBA ban raises questions as new details emerge
|New data indicates the impact of the LRBAs ban for SMSFs may have been underestimated, which will affect a market significantly larger than what officials suggested, with major implications for housing supply and competition in the mortgage market.
IFM acquires shopping centre portfolio for $300m
|IFM Investors has acquired a shopping centre portfolio to be developed and built by Australian-owned developer-builder Oreana with a value of approximately $300 million, as it seeks to harness a surge in convenience-based shopping.
VanEck targets tech thematics with trifecta launch
|VanEck is bringing three ETFs to life for local investors to access thematic investments across several emerging technology sectors, including what it says is "Australia's first dedicated quantum computing ETF."
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Hugh Killen
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED
For Hugh Killen, several life lessons came from spending time on pastoral properties stretching across northern New South Wales and South-West Queensland.







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.