Low balance members hit with fees under super changesBY ALICE URIBE | MONDAY, 8 APR 2013 12:25PMExtra administration costs borne out of the federal government's proposed superannuation changes could be passed onto all superannuation fund members, even those with small balances according to Deloitte. |
Editor's Choice
Cbus rolls out death benefit nomination changes
Cbus will roll out changes to death benefit nominations, which include scrapping nominations that expire in three years.
Guardians farewells head of asset allocation
The Guardians of NZ Super has named a new head of asset allocation to replace Charles Hyde, who is leaving to take up a role abroad.
IFS recovers record $250m in unpaid super
Industry Fund Services (IFS) has recovered a record $250 million in unpaid superannuation in the 2025-26 financial year, bringing its total recoveries to $2.5 billion since the service commenced.
Betashares launches diversified ETF suite
Betashares has expanded its core investment range with the launch of four diversified exchange traded funds.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Andrew Gregory
CHIEF ADVICE OFFICER
UNISUPER
UNISUPER
After 25 years, Andrew Gregory remains motivated by the impact financial advice can have on Australians' lives. As UniSuper's chief advice officer, he is not slowing down on any of his current ambitions. Matthew Wai writes.







Likewise, the comment that smaller balances will be hit is jumping the gun. The Govt made a reasonable assumption that funds in retirement will earn 5% pa on average. Such funds tend to be more conservatively invested so this is sensible. The SMSF brigade is quick off the mark, trying to keep their tax minimisation plans going and maintaining a tax haven for large balances.
A little more analysis and insight, and a little less histrionics will help the industry move forward.
The basket known as "unintended consequences" is already full as a result of poorly thought through policy and this whole tranche of changes has simply caused us to get a second bucket to catch the overflow.
I would have thought that "unintended consequences" are those not identified at the outset. What do you call it when these consequences have been identified, but you arrogantly still push the changes through?
I call it "policy just to make it hard for the new government when they come into power to repeal".
The first term of the new parliament is going to be full time unravelling all the mistakes of this current one and the list continues to grow and grow and grow.
Why not make it official? Why don't they ask us all to give up our super for the greater good of the entire population?
Bad luck if you've made sacrifices along the way to stay off the dole and tried hard to make something of your life....too bad, we'll have that...thank you very much....I guess I better get back to work to pay my taxes so that I can be told that, even having donated my fair share to government coffers, it's still not enough...!!
Bring on September 14.