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
Start-ups, small businesses win CGT reform carveouts
|Treasury has unveiled a package of capital gains tax (CGT) discount carveouts targeting small businesses, and start-ups and their investors following backlash since the reforms were announced in the Budget on May 12.
Aware Super sells majority stake in water portfolio
|Aware Super has sold a majority portion of its Australian water portfolio from the southern Murray-Darling Basin.
ASIC slaps adviser with 10-year ban, strips AFSL
|ASIC has banned Brett Newbound of Victoria, a financial adviser and the sole director of Freedom Wealth Services, which has subsequently lost its AFSL.
ATO reveals highest paid jobs, postcodes
|Victoria is home to Australia's highest earning postcode for the first time, according to newly release Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data, as taxable incomes, capital gains and superannuation balances continue to climb.
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?