Super trustees need better vigilance: APRABY EMMA RAPAPORT | MONDAY, 27 MAR 2017 12:43PM![]() APRA's deputy chair Helen Rowell hit out at superannuation trustees who incur "inappropriate expenditures" saying that unnecessary costs negatively affect outcomes for members. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Aware Super reshapes governance team, appoints chief risk officer
Aware Super has announced a leadership reshuffle, appointing a new chief risk officer amid the departure of its long-serving group executive of legal.
IFM lifts stake in Atlas Arteria to 40% after upping offer price
IFM Investors has raised its stake in Atlas Arteria from 34.5% to 38.3% in an on-market stock purchase, just a day after it raised its offer price for the toll road operator to $5.10 per security.
Zenith bolsters research, investment capabilities with new hires
Zenith has announced two senior appointments to strengthen its research and portfolio management divisions.
Regulators push for stronger stress-testing capability, resilience
The ability to remain resilient and manage liquidity pressures amid severe, multi-dimensional stress scenarios is an area of focus that APRA and ASIC want superannuation funds to improve.
Products
Featured Profile

Brian Redican
CHIEF ECONOMIST
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
What makes an economist an economist? TCorp chief economist Brian Redican reflects on over three decades of navigating Australia's economic cycles. Riddhima Talwani writes.








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?