Super funds face major reforms

Super funds will undergo a major shake up after new reforms announced late last night.

Super funds face major reforms

Superannuation funds will undergo a major shake up after the government announced new reforms last night.

The reforms mean that superannuation funds will be required to be managed by an independent chairman, as well as at least one third of a fund’s board being comprised of independent directors. The measures mirror recommendations from the Labor Government commissioned Cooper Review in 2010.

The move could possibly be seen as the Government targeting union-backed industry funds in a bid to increase transparency between unions and the boards currently controlling industry funds, but the new changes will also apply to corporate, retail and public sector funds.

Australia’s superannuation funds are currently worth an estimated $2 trillion, but are tipped to rise to around $9 trillion by 2040. It is expected that the number of Australians over 65 accessing their super will double by 2054–55.

Under the drafted legislation, super funds will also be required to release detailed annual reports similar to rules that apply to ASX-listed companies.

The new rules come hot on the heels of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption that is investigating multiple incidents of alleged misconduct and conflicts of interest between trade unions and employers.

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the Federal Government believes the changes will improve the overall governance of superannuation funds.

“Not only does superannuation represent the hard-earned retirement savings of Australians, it is already the second largest asset held by Australian households,” said Mr Frydenberg. “Given the size of the superannuation system, and its importance in funding the retirement of Australians, good governance is absolutely critical.

“Independent directors bring additional experience and expertise to boards making a valuable contribution to their decision making,” he said.

Industry Super Fund (ISA) Deputy Chief Executive Robbie Campo cautioned against a blanket approach that would also affect not-for-profit super funds and its members.

“Tackling governance problems in other parts of the finance sector should be the priority,” said Mr Campo.

The proposed reforms will affect all superannuation funds under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), but will not influence the running of self-managed funds.

How will this affect you? Do you agree that a widespread reform is required in the management of super funds? Or would you like to see a more tailored approach to individual funds?

Read more at www.abc.net.au





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:39am
    This sounds a lot like the normal red herring you get from this side of politics BEFORE every election. We saw it with Julia Gillard...who was cleared by the courts after the election was done and dusted. Now apparently Shorten has a case to answer. We'll see!
    The real issue is not the way the super funds work as most of the big one do not dud their members from what I can see. The REAL ISSUE is that this side of politics has a sweetheart deal with rich Australians and consistently REFUSES to close the superannuation tax shelter which was set up for the rich.
    Bu all mean strengthen the super system but lets fix the glaring rorts which have been going on for too long and which continue to be sponsored by this government with no end in sight.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:07pm
    The way things are panning out mick Labor will be lucky to outperform the Greens at the next poll.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:21pm
    A paid political add Frank? The smear campaign will be seen for what it is. SHOW US THE PROOF.
    disillusioned
    26th Jun 2015
    9:53am
    It's funny, isn't it that the industry funds (which have union representatives on their boards) are the ones that are doing the best, on the whole. We have to ensure that any government can not get their grubby mitts on our savings - or hand them over to their corporate mates to play with....
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:31pm
    Funny that indeed.
    I smell an election coming. Same smear tactics as last time around. Disgraceful.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    2:21pm
    When comparing the performance of Funds, make sure you are comparing apples with apples. Don't be fooled by hearsay.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    2:57pm
    EARNINGS are not hearsay.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:12pm
    So you are just going by what you are told mick?
    "Earnings" before or after fees and admin costs? I have to tell you I've looked hard and I cant find the fees, admin and associated costs in the industry funds. Some of them are also hard to find in the retail funds.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:23pm
    EARNINGS (=RETURNS) to members. You can twist and contort the facts any way you like but the bottom line is that Industry Funds do not pay huge salaries and fees to all those who suck on the corps. That is why statement above is impotent.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    6:08pm
    mick maths is an exact science. If you make a statement such as "industry Funds have higher earnings" then you need to have proof mate!
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:31pm
    Saw the 7:30 Report tonight. Your statement is ludicrous. The same statement was made on the program....but not unexpectedly the question was side-stepped by your colleague Frydenburg.
    You can run but you cannot hide. The facts are the facts.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:15pm
    Not referring to your post disillusionment. Frank. As normal. Same story line!
    TREBOR
    27th Jun 2015
    1:11am
    Here's a start:-

    https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/superannuation-and-retirement/how-super-works/choosing-a-super-fund/super-comparison-websites

    Do your own homework....
    Wstaton
    26th Jun 2015
    10:00am
    Typical of the Abbott government attacking employee and industry super funds where there has been no evidence if rorting yet denying a commission to investigate the big banks fiascos
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:35pm
    Methinks there needs to be a Royal Commission with wide ranging powers to chase down where political parties get their election funding and whether or not the fact that these contributors are paid back down the track constitutes FRAUD. Many might think that it does.
    Lets see how that sits with the Repeal of the Carbon and Mining Taxes and the scuttling of the protections set up for consumers against the financial industry by the previous government. There would be some with a lot to worry about.
    rratrr
    26th Jun 2015
    10:23am
    It's all becoming very interesting is it not?
    The big end of town must be squeaky clean and the retail funds well behaved. Well Mr Frydenberg, I have something to tell you. Start listening to your own Senator John Williams who is the only one willing to fight for us. His colleagues all must have too many fingers in the pie and mates they wish to protect. Why are there be so many self funded retirees hurting now, if strict guidelines had already been in place? The only way to deal with the white collar criminals is a Royal Commission right now. It may be expensive, but when all the crooks are behind bars and the industry is no longer self regulated, the hard workers of Australia will be rewarded and not totally screwed by rogue financial planners.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:36pm
    The big end of town I suspect would be found to be as dirty as a rat in mud. Bring it on.
    Anonymous
    26th Jun 2015
    1:47pm
    Les Patterson would do a better job than Frydenberg. Josh couldn't care any less about Age Pensioners, their super funds, allocated pensions, or well being, just like the great majority of politicians.
    wally
    26th Jun 2015
    10:23am
    Dear oh Dearie me. Here we go again with the usual guff from the usual suspects of Socialists and "retread" Commies!
    disillusioned
    26th Jun 2015
    10:29am
    Wally the evidence is all there - industry v retail funds - take a look. And call people commies or whatever you like but people have worked hard for many years and don't want to see retirement savings wasted by the big end of town. What do you call them, and yourself for that matter, I wonder?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:40pm
    I think that disillusioned is on the money here wally. The Industry Funds have annihilated the business Retail Funds. Chalk and cheese. So why does this sort of thing come up just before an election is called. And also why is the same mud throwing now happening with Shorten as occurred with Gillard...with charges brought against her (by this government) shown to be baseless.
    We are in a dirty game by the most malicious and dirty government in the history of this nation. Don't defend it.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    2:07pm
    wally, I agree with your sentiment. Why does everything have to be about politics with these lefties? What is a Retread Commie?
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    2:34pm
    "Dear oh Dearie me. Here we go again with the usual guff from the usual suspects of Socialists and "retread" Commies! "

    So arbitrarily labeling anyone left of Hitler as a 'Socialist of 'retread' Commie is not making it political?

    'Wally' says it all...

    I, for one agree wholeheartily with the basic sentiments and ideas, most often supported by historical facts and figures, that our learned apparently left-leaning friends put forward - but if you call me a Commie you are staring down the barrel of twin .44s...

    When people are seeking, as is their right, the best performance without corruption for THEIR dollars - they have the right to their view without vilification.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    2:59pm
    And more importantly why are people branded "lefties" when the RELEVANT truth is put forward.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:17pm
    OK let's call them Independents who preference Labor.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:25pm
    If all else fails Frank.......change the subject.
    Of course people who vote for Independents preferencing the LNP are ok. And that is what this government is counting on: people who do not check where the preferences are going. Good try.
    dougie
    26th Jun 2015
    10:36am
    This seems to be part of the answer that people have been looking for but not all. Super Funds really do need transparency and legal means of forcing those who are involved i funds management to work for their clients, not themselves.

    How many people lost thousands of dollars at the time of the GFC simply because managements were too slow to act. The management of these funds need to know that they are responsible for the future and the retirement funds of many people and that their integrity must be totally untainted. There should be no donations to unions or to election funds nor should there be any sponsorships etc. This is members money not managers money and should be treated like precious life itself.
    I do not believe that this is a grab by government to get their hands on the funds but a definative effort to secure the rights of the members.
    Anonymous
    26th Jun 2015
    10:41am
    Saved me doing a bit of typing as you got that spot on doughie lets get some honest people running these funds in the best interest of the members and not the unions who are likely to do who knows what with the members money.
    Chris B T
    26th Jun 2015
    11:23am
    Right you are about the GFC, months before it was realised I contacted Super Fund about putting my money in more safer place within the Fund.
    Told because I was in a balance fund not to wary, no suggestion of putting in cash part of fund. Just ride it out, lost over $100k in a year.
    Took forever to get control of my funds, now I'm responsible for My Funds and blame.
    My suggestion is if you can't trust them take your money out before they make it harder and restrictive rules.
    Anonymous
    26th Jun 2015
    1:41pm
    Yes, dougie, you are right. I was in an industry super fund member with VicSuper for a few years and they were the worst performers in the state. I didn't lose mega bucks by any means, but a loss is a loss. I don't know whether my experience was one which is representative of a fund being run by pseudo public servants, but this is the impression I got by correspondence, reports, and returns - not a lot of care, interest, or knowledge about investing other peoples' money.
    Anonymous
    26th Jun 2015
    1:41pm
    Yes, dougie, you are right. I was in an industry super fund member with VicSuper for a few years and they were the worst performers in the state. I didn't lose mega bucks by any means, but a loss is a loss. I don't know whether my experience was one which is representative of a fund being run by pseudo public servants, but this is the impression I got by correspondence, reports, and returns - not a lot of care, interest, or knowledge about investing other peoples' money.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:42pm
    The issue is dougie that Industry Funds are routinely amongst the best performers on the market. This would not be occurring if unions were doing anything wrong as alleged by our dishonest government now approaching an election.
    If change is desired then WHY just target Industry Funds.....unless this is politically motivated, which it is?
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    2:24pm
    mick, who said they were targeting industry funds? Where did you get that information?
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    2:37pm
    "The move could possibly be seen as the Government targeting union-backed industry funds in a bid to increase transparency between unions and the boards currently controlling industry funds, but the new changes will also apply to corporate, retail and public sector funds."

    I think that just about covers it.

    My concern and interest is in where these 'independent directors etc are coming from... and who they are in reality.

    Watch this space for chair juggling and fund stacking with mates from both 'sides' of The Tag Team.... nothing new under the sun...
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    2:41pm
    It is for all funds Mick.
    Chris B T
    26th Jun 2015
    2:42pm
    Mick it was a Industry Fund That Cost Me Over $100k, by not informing me that I could more my funds from a balanced fund to a cash months before the GFC.
    I made a request for my funds to be in safer part of the Fund. Told to ride it Out.
    My take they needed propping up for bad investments and take funds from wherever they could. Moving funds to cash funds would be less people to take from. :-(
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    2:45pm
    Because you grab a statement by Leon, Trebor "could be seen as...." does not make it a fact. Also note the word, COULD.
    dougie
    26th Jun 2015
    2:52pm
    I would not dare to argue with Mick as it would seem from reading this site that Mick is the fount of all knowledge and we must all bow to his superior intellect and knowledge of the world. Praise be to Mick.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:05pm
    Chris that would have been about the time that Kevin Rudd was saying we wouldn't be affected by the GFC. But then the politics of the left kicked in and Rudd caused a run on mortgage funds by upping the Lender of last resort guarantee.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:05pm
    Go and have a look at the print media headlines today.
    For what it is worth dougie I'd be happy to argue the FACTS with you any day....but lets stick to the facts rather than change the subject.
    You are making a one sided political comment. ALL FUNDING TO POLITICAL PARTIES NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINISED and that includes WHERE the current government derives its funding from. That's fair and I'll back you if you back me.
    I thought so.............
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    3:13pm
    Don't see your argument, Sceptic - just posting it as written. It 'could' be seen as against Union funds, but it says it includes all.... I'll have to eat the pudding to know the truth... unfortunately in the event the pudding is poisoned (again)....
    dougie
    26th Jun 2015
    4:55pm
    Mick,
    All I suggested was that you seemed to be the fount of all knowledge. You may have your thoughts and I and others will have theirs. I will not ram mine down your throat if you do not try to ram your views down my throat. We each and everyone have a right to our own views.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    6:05pm
    dougie the difference is that mick is a paid lobbyist and under pressure to get his views across to those who may not have access to all the facts.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:42pm
    Sorry to be full on dougie. Stick to the facts and avoid changing the subject and your view will get the respect it deserves. Not really anything to do with "views". You are entitled to your "opinion" as long as your (supposed) view is truthful and is not propaganda.
    Frank: You are so transparent. Whilst I present the facts YOU advertise the government propaganda. Quite obvious who is paid. There's an old saying: "the ultimate sign of success is when somebody plagiarises you. Thanks. I appreciate the compliment.
    Teddyb
    26th Jun 2015
    11:04am
    Here we again. Union bashers at it again. Union bosses will take all their members money and do what they like whereas LNP people get off scot free by having mates in Government and make sure that they will not be hit. Kick the worker, kick the pensioner, kick a union member, that's the stuff. God some of you people make me sick. If the unions never stood up for their members we would all be like americans on a basic wage of around $8.50 an hour, no Health care, no holidays (USA has only 2 weeks) and so on. The thing that really sticks in my throat are the people who have decent benefits are hypocrites as they denounce unions but still want the benefits that they got for you. Plenty of those around.
    disillusioned
    26th Jun 2015
    12:40pm
    Go Teddy! You are so right..... I am so over union bashing. We are living through yet another Royal Commission into unions... let's see there that leads once more with feeling. And, once the big end of town get their way and when everyone is on $8.50 an hour or less - who will have any income to purchase their goods and services??? It is all so shortsighted.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:44pm
    IT is about time that the public called on the establishment of A FEDERAL ICAC TO LOOK AT WHO IS FUNDING THE LNP. That would be transparency. And that will be refused to the death by this government which is hiding who controls it via this funding.
    Anonymous
    26th Jun 2015
    2:26pm
    Guys, I have been a member of both types of union; one did it's hardest to discourage or find re-employment at retrenchment time (as bent as they come), while the other did as much as they could for members and their entitlements and excluded non-members from redundancy negotiations. I've always been with a retail fund and the current one charges very low admin and investment fees, handles transactions well, and correspondence and confirmation mail is spot on. I've experienced. After retirement age I think having a financial adviser is a real waste of money, particularly in this time of world uncertainty and turmoil. Put your money into a very conservative investment, earn bugger all but have peace of mind, and enjoy what you have while you're here to spend it. I believe it will be a long time before the economy sees any significant improvement. Good luck!
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    2:39pm
    100% correct, mick. Time for proper oversight by a genuinely independent body of all government interactions with private enterprises etc, including funds.

    Don't hold your breath for ToJo to go there, though.... not before a lot of laundering of past records goes on...
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    2:40pm
    And correct, Fast Eddie...
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    2:49pm
    Interesting Trebor, you advocate an independent body to look at the Government but are against the proposed 30% of board members of Union dominated super funds being independent.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:10pm
    Fast Eddie: a balanced view. Picking the right fund is hard but past performance is one criteria. As I said before Industry Funds have OUTPERFORMED retail funds but that does not mean that there is not a lemon in the pack. But your observation, whilst correct, means that money invested will grow slowly. And lets face it workers put money into funds to get a better than bank interest return. Otherwise there would be no point in paying the high salaries of a whole pile of people taking rather over-generous salaries.
    TREBOR
    26th Jun 2015
    3:15pm
    I'm not 'against' the 30% 'independents' - I just want thorough scrutiny and a squeaky clean insertion of true independents and not just more party hacks being given a nice little sinecure.......
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:28pm
    This of course is the issue TREBOR. I am seeing a few Pensioner Parties begin and it appears that these may be LNP fronts with the candidates acting as dummies so that the votes flow on to this government which is currently trying to silence free speech in this country.
    TREBOR
    27th Jun 2015
    1:25pm
    I was actually talking about the super funds, mick, but your point about parties is valid - beware of creeps bearing grift.... meaning watch out for people playing games with themselves and you to undermine your democratic rights. Trojan Horse Parties... sad that such things as you mention should even start up here... jut goes to show the true paucity of Australian politics at this time, and the desperation of the major parties to hold on to control at any cost.

    30% genuine independents in Parliament might be a good thing the way The Tag Team have been devolving in the past few years.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:22pm
    The issue is less on which Independent you choose rather than NOT choosing Liberal or Labor. At this early stage I urge voters to make sure that if they vote for an Independent then the preferences of this candidate do not flow on to this corrupt government.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    11:59am
    First State Super Fund chairman Tom Parry was asking for a review of the SIS act during the Gillard Government. Then Director Michael Williamson ( ex HSU Boss and President of the Federal Labor Party) was facing criminal charges and unable to be removed.
    Parry was quoted as saying “As a general matter of principal, you need a sufficient number of independent directors so you can keep the board honest if required.”
    "Independent" being the operative word.
    There is no room for nepotism on these boards.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:46pm
    Very knowledgeable Frank for a supposed 'citizen' contributor.
    As I said above lets have rules for ALL. Not just funds which have union representation. And as I also said above INDUSTRY FUNDS HAVE HAD THE BEST RETURNS FOR DECADES. So stop with the paid political advertisement Frank and stick with the facts!
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    2:51pm
    Please deal with facts mick, it is for all super funds.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:11pm
    Not according the front page of one of the large print media today. If for "all' then that is fair and it would get my support. But given the timing (on the eve of an election) pardon me for being a bit cynical.
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    4:04pm
    Even Leon in his article says "but the new changes will also apply to corporate, retail and public sector funds." By the way, which paper had the incorrect information on its front page?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:45pm
    Sceptic: what you fail to tell readers is that the Royal Commission into the Superannuation Industry is aimed at ONLY THOSE WITH UNION REPRESENTATION. The 7:30 Report tonight made exactly that point to Josh Frydenberg and went on to ask why the commercial funds were exempt? NO ANSWER. Why is that not surprising.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    9:24pm
    mick, SMSFs don't need have arms length directors so what are you on about?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:43pm
    My response related to comment above from sceptic (??). Of course it would not apply to a one man show!
    TREBOR
    27th Jun 2015
    1:29pm
    Fair point, though Frank. I'm watching this little side show with interest......

    Surely by now governments of both 'sides' would have begun to realise that their childish moves are plain as glass to the public, and they are losing credibility at every silly step.

    Neither 'side' has had any credibility with me for over two decades now... perhaps more, and I trust them not at all.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:24pm
    Because the voting public has bee convinced that only the major parties can effect proper government (the ultimate lie) people do not generally vote for Independents. However, this is precisely how to change the game. GET RID OF THE PROBLEM(S).
    geomac
    28th Jun 2015
    1:25am
    Frank
    You seem to forget that there was issue or accusation of bad behaviour in First State super. Williamson may have been a crook but had no chance to rob the super fund because it was run properly. Bag him all you want for the HSU because he deserves it but First State has nothing to hide or be concerned about in its operation. In fact that shows how well industry funds operate.
    Adrianus
    28th Jun 2015
    8:22am
    I was simply eluding to the fact that reform of the SIS act was requested in 2010 and in 2012 by these super funds. I wonder why the requests fell on deaf ears? Why did the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government take no action to clean up the mess?
    MICK
    28th Jun 2015
    10:04am
    Don't know. But the question is why does THIS GOVERNMENT NOT ACT?
    Your apparent level of knowledge just keeps reinforcing what I say: that you are acting on this website for this dishonest government shoring up support for re-election and sowing seeds to blacken the name of the opposition. Crystal clear mate. Your level of deceit matches that of the government down to a tee.
    Adrianus
    28th Jun 2015
    11:28am
    mick someone needs to provide the balance. You obviously are not aware what is going on. The ACTU is building one of the biggest war chests in Australian political history.
    They’ve put a compulsory levy on union members to go after the government and give Labor a massive advantage at the next federal election. It’s raising many millions already.
    The CFMEU is also now running a massive scare campaign with direct calls into households. The situation is dire.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2015
    2:51pm
    What a reprehensible human being you are Frank. First you troll for the government on this and possibly other websites. Second you attack one side of politics whilst turning a blind eye to the other. And now third you make spurious claims....as is the norm.
    "Balance"? Is that like when the coal industry and mining industries provide election funding and are then repaid after the election with massive windfalls whilst the nation and those who voted your employer in are betrayed?
    If you are fair dinkum, and I know you are not, then call for AN END TO ELECTION FUNDING FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN TAXPAYER LIMITED FUNDING...NO MORE ALLOWED TO BE SPENT (and that includes commercial organisations doing their 'apparent' own advertising. Would that not accomplish your demands?
    As for unions building a massive war chest I do not believe it. As things stand your employer is trying to kill off the last remaining free speech media out let. That is corruption at work and I can only hope that all Australians send this government into oblivion. There is not any other government I have ever said this about but then there is no other government in this country which reaks of a dictatorship like this one does. It should scare the pants off you too Frank and the fact that you are one of its mouthpieces says to me that you care about the money you are being paid, not the nation. AS I started....what a reprehensible human being you are! It has come down to what is to become of this nation: freedom or dictatorship....and you have chosen your side.
    Adrianus
    28th Jun 2015
    3:16pm
    geo, I suppose you are right. It was First State Investments, the office across the corridor which set up the $5b master trust for Storm.
    worker
    26th Jun 2015
    1:30pm
    Lets all have the same conditions with how superannuation as those we employee Members of parliament that way we will not have to worry about having funds to live on in retirement , all so because this mob would not want to be jibed no checks would be needed, or would they?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:47pm
    Got my vote.
    The Bernster
    26th Jun 2015
    1:42pm
    This is a great decision. Our superannuation needs protection, transparency and unbiased decision making. While this reform may have union interference within the industry funds as its goal, I have a funny feeling the retail funds may be uncovered for their ridiculous dealings, commissions and fees. About 5 years ago I swapped from BT Super to Hesta, best decision I've made. I'll take the union interference over the banking sector interference anyday. Proof is in the result. This reform will help everyone's super.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    1:49pm
    You are on the money Bernster. The figures and returns to members speak for themselves.
    The latest attack from this government has all the hallmarks of an election about it. A replay of the 'smear' Gillard' campaign....which ended up with no conviction because there was no substance to the defamatory allegations made.
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    2:54pm
    More utter rubbish mick. I suppose that Ms Gillard was sacked from Slater & Gordon because her actions were exemplary.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:12pm
    The facts have been presented. Tell me what is not factual. And more importantly answer the question: is an election about to be called? Read my lips!
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    4:09pm
    As a former director of a company that had a strong corporate governance programme, her behaviour was completely unethical, even if not illegal. As far as an election is concerned. I would not know if one is likely to be called shortly. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but I do not believe that it is likely, unless there is a massive change in the so called opinion polls.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:52pm
    Sceptic: hang on my dear troll. What does Gillard have to do with "corporate governance"? The point I was making is that the next Abbott government smear campaign is under way......Royal Commission into Shorten's time in the union movement, Union members in the Superannuation industry (where these funds are the best performing in the market place) and then the attack on the ABC because this corrupt government wants to have 100% compliance in the media......effectively turning Australia into a country like China, North Korea or Russia where the media is a government mouthpiece and has no independence.
    What sort of Australian are you Sceptic? People who are happy to sell out our nation need to leave. There is no place here for totalitarian regimes or their supporters.
    Sceptic
    27th Jun 2015
    10:16am
    As you obviously, from your comment, do not know the meaning of corporate governance mick, your best move is to change the subject. You obviously also have no knowledge of what happens in totalitarian states for you to be making such an undergraduate comment of the attack on the ABC. It was not an issue of free speech, but a taxpayer paid platform for airing a convicted criminal and a self declared terrorist a platform for his diatribe.
    Sceptic
    27th Jun 2015
    10:19am
    Forgot to mention - here you go again with more lies with your accusation of troll. You are always accusing others that disagree with you as not using facts, yet you are the worst poster on this site for stating lies.
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    11:23am
    Sceptic is correct mick. It's time you cleaned up your act. Try to regain what little credibility you have left. Posters here are not as gullible as you think.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    12:54pm
    YOU have no credibility of any kind Frank. Your posts are always the same: anti Union, anti Labor. No substance. Just mindless attacks. AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE SERIOUS ONGOING ISSUES WITH THIS GOVERNMENT AND ITS DICTATORIAL STYLE OF GOVERNMENT with the 'do as I say' not do as I do behaviour.
    Readers will judge who the cuprit is here...and I will try to stay with the facts even as I am forced to defend your baseless attacks on a Party I have not personally voted for for over 30 years.
    Tomaso
    26th Jun 2015
    2:53pm
    Like others here I lost a bundle too at GFC, over retirement age now, still working, otherwise I would have retired a few years ago, sick of all of them.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:19pm
    Did you really lose anything Tomaso? That would only have happened if you retired just after the GFC.....and you cannot blame anybody for that other than the greedy (big business) bankers in the US who were selling dud products to large investors (councils, etc.). These were a ticking time bomb which blew up.....and then the white collar crooks were never held to account. Why is it that history never much changes?
    I took my super and ran after the GFC. Lost a bit but came out in tact before the worst of it hit. I feel sorry for you if you got caught short. It did get a few Australians. Maybe thank the Lord for the fact that you survived and are here to tell the tale. Cheers.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:25pm
    Tomaso, we knew before the 2007 election that a possible problem was looming and yet we put some novices in charge, who made things worse. We have to accept responsibility and move on. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:32pm
    And then Frank the political trolls start the blame game. You know the spiel: surpluses when times are good (Howard government during mining boom on steroids) and the blame when times are bad (Rudd government after the GFC).
    You should not insult the intelligence of people despite the fact that many people.
    Sceptic
    26th Jun 2015
    4:16pm
    mick, ignoring the facts again, the terms of trade during the Rudd years were something that could only be dreamt of during the Howard years, The mining boom peaked in 2012 or 2013, depending on which measure is used.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:53pm
    The Howard years had the dough flowing in. The Rudd years was a world in drought.
    Sceptic
    27th Jun 2015
    10:20am
    An extra 200 billion income during the Rudd years mick - that is a drought?
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    11:34am
    Too right Sceptic. Peter Costello often expresses his envy at Rudd's strong cash flow position.
    mick the only drought was a drought of intelligence from the Rudd government. And don't tell me Rudd saved us from the GFC again. Labor is split into factions which have a raison d'être of disunity. They seriously need to consider having each faction peel off into political parties.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    12:51pm
    Self admiration society again Frank?
    It was Costello who was Treasurer in his hammock. No GFC in his time. Everybody knows that.
    Diamond Jim
    27th Jun 2015
    1:14pm
    Frank you have no clue!!! Labor saved us from the depths of the GFC. If the LNP had been in power we would have come out worse.....fact! You don't get the award of World's Best Treasurer for nothing......fact! Well done Wayne Swan
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    1:53pm
    I'll tell you a little something about magazine awards one day. :)
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:26pm
    Don't bother with Frank Jim. He is a plant.
    Fredklaus
    26th Jun 2015
    3:25pm
    Another LIE by abbot,I don't mind this happening but why not stop the super rich from abusing super.Also maybe super funds will stop using my funds to advertise and promote things that don't enhance our super,how much is given to unions and hangers on that does not show up in returns to members. Hence we have so many self funded SF,s
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    3:36pm
    A bit of wisdom.
    SMSF may seem better than they really are as there are compliance costs (expensive!) and then an inexperienced sole operator can make some pretty fundamental investment decisions from which there may be no recovery.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    6:01pm
    There are compliance costs with every fund. There are also mistakes made by some pretty fundamental errors made by asset managers but they still get paid. Now let me see, how much is 1.5% of $2 trillion?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    8:54pm
    My point exactly. This is the prize this cash strapped government is after. Let the games continue.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    9:31pm
    The $20b is split between the financial institutions and the unions. That's far too much power for unions. We saw an example of their expertise in Government for 6 long years. Nearly had us on our knees while they exacted revenge on each other.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    9:21am
    So lets force the commercial funds to now have 50% union representation on their Boards. Same illogical argument. But just like this government never applies its rules to itself you will not get such an outcome. Get a new line from your boss Frank. Nobody is listening.
    Snowwhite
    26th Jun 2015
    3:41pm
    Totally agree Teddyb
    You don't see non unionists refusing their pay rise or paid public holiday!! I would have more respect for them if they did. They are entitled to their opinion. This current Govt want to get rid of Unions for their rich mates and introduce work choices. With housing unaffordable now just imagine where we'll be with lower wages like the U.S. We will be a two tier society namely the rich and the working poor. And no I'm not a retread Commie which is insulting to even say just because my views are different to yours Wally. If that is your best argument run with it but it's not showing much intelligence.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    4:26pm
    Wages generally go up in a tight labor market and sure the blackmail, strikes etc are also responsible for wage increases and as we recently were made aware it can go the other way too. But we are talking about Super boards not having enough independent representation. Now let me see, which boards would they be?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:00pm
    Yeah Frank. Over the past 20 years wages growth for the bulk of Australians have been zilch whilst the big end of town gets 10%+ a year. And then the big end of town tries to force down wages and cry foul.
    Its not working as the divide between rich and poor is well understood by even the feeble minded.
    This cry supposed about for "independent directors" on super boards ignores the reason WHY union representation was put on these boards in the first place: BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL FUNDS CREAMED OFF THE PROFITS FOR THE INDUSTRY AND THE FAT CATS AT THE TOP. And now you attack the wonderful performance of these funds so that your mates in the big end of town can get their fangs into superannuation money which does not belong to them.
    Your conduct is what I have come to expect from the morally devoid top end of town. It does disgust me and I can only hope that ordinary Australians see through what is happening.
    Snowwhite
    26th Jun 2015
    4:46pm
    I hate to burst your bubble Sceptic but Ms Gillatd was not sacked from Slater & Gordon but resigned. I suggest you get your facts right before you comment. Easy to see where you stand. However moving on just for interest sake my Super is in an industry fund which has performed well.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:03pm
    And the courts cleared Gillard of the smear which Abbott Inc. ran against her in the last election. Never mention of that from the government lobbyists! But then we are into the next smear so lets move on????
    ABout time a Royal Commission was conducted into how and from whom this government sources its election funding and into the nature of how it is to be repaid once government is attained. There is where the real story is to be found.
    Kaz
    26th Jun 2015
    5:03pm
    It does seem that when well thought intelligent comments or questions are posted, those that do not have an intelligent response start calling people socialists, commies, etc. Act your age and try to be objective and compassionate.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    6:12pm
    Thank you Kaz.
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:05pm
    Agree. Lets ALL hold posts to THE FACTS and more important the facts relevant to the topic. That would be a nice change.
    rratrr
    26th Jun 2015
    6:36pm
    From the vigorous debate here one thing is very obvious.......we need a Pensioners Party.
    Anyone here want to be Prime Minister to start the ball rolling?
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:09pm
    I have said this before.
    People will tell you we have several. But when you dig into these so called parties you will find, like I have, that they are little more than fronts feeding votes to the LNP. BE CAREFUL.
    But yes, by all means I'd love to see a genuine party born to represent retirees so that at the end of life people are not stressed due to a bastard in power attacking their ability to support themselves when they have no income other than a few (poorly performing) investments. The caveat of course is that very wealthy retirees should fund themselves.
    Adrianus
    26th Jun 2015
    9:35pm
    mick there you go with your anti government rant again. Like Mark Scott. You call yourself an Australian??????
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    9:27am
    I am a genuine Australian as I have NEVER betrayed the masses. Scott spoke up for free speech last night and rightly made the point that if the ABC becomes yet another mouthpiece for this big business owned government then we will become a propaganda state like North Korea and Russia. THIS IS THE AGENDA OF THIS GOVERNMENT....to control ALL of the media.
    And for the record your posts are a part of the problem and it must be as clear as mud where they come from and whose tax dollars are paying for you to sell your soul Frank.
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    11:18am
    Absolute rubbish mick! Why would the government want "to control all of the media???" As you put it.
    Like many of us patriotic Australians, they are trying to understand why the ABC has elevated a person to rock star status, being chauffeured at taxpayers expense. A person who threatened Commonwealth officials. Fair enough, his conviction cost him 2.5 years in Goulbourn's Super Max. He has paid the price, but he has expressed support for al-Qaeda and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
    Tony Jones apologised in an admission that Q&A had gone too far. I suppose you would say Tony Jones is attempting "to control all media"????
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    12:49pm
    YOU are NOT a patriotic Australian of any sort Frank (or whoever you are). Anybody wanting to turn one of the ONLY remaining independent media outlets into a government propaganda station is better suited moving to North Korea or China where their betrayal of the population is going to be appreciated.
    As normal Frank you look to change the subject with the rest of your illogical post.
    Whilst I did not watch the episode of Q&A which has cause the self righteous outrage from this deceitful government I did see the replay. NOTHING to do with promoting terrorism...except in the minds of this government and its paid trolls.
    So you expect PERFECTION from Tony Jones (who rarely puts a foot wrong) when your employer routinely lies to the public, deceives it and tries to force the worst policies down their throat that this nation has EVER experienced.
    Troll on mate. You are wasting your time. Readers know the truth!
    DaveL
    26th Jun 2015
    7:59pm
    These independent Directors should chosen from interested MEMBERS, not the usual career directors. There is no independence with corporate affiliations. Members will have their and other members interests at heart. Retail funds (Banks) with there independent directors since at least 2012, did not change their culture. CBA has not shown any remorse.
    rratrr
    26th Jun 2015
    8:05pm
    It's called a boys club!
    MICK
    26th Jun 2015
    9:14pm
    Well said and so prudent.
    The current rhetoric is an attempt from the big end of town to enrich itself with highly paid commercial directorships. The current union members overseeing these funds get, from what I understand, a pittance and only do the job in the interests of their members. Of course the performance of the funds says it all:

    commercial funds - generally poor performance with high fees
    industry funds - generally high performance with low fees

    Well we can't have that can we!!
    Sceptic
    27th Jun 2015
    10:24am
    How can a member be an independent director? By definition they are one of the least independent.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    12:42pm
    And how can somebody drawing a huge salary in a commercial superannuation fund have the interests of members at heart? By definition self interest is what it is.
    TREBOR
    27th Jun 2015
    1:40pm
    That is why I raised the question of political hacks and old cronies on both 'sides' copping nice little earners via appointment to boards of super funds... just another rort for the Insiders Club off the backs of the ordinary people.

    I recall many years ago the issue of Croneyism in Queensland being a big deal, with all the mutual back-slapping and mutual finding of 'business opportunities' (similar to privatisation - just an extension of the same old insider lie) under the Bjeke farce.....

    Nothing new under ths sun.. EVER.

    Anyone prepared to offer a 'pool' of suitable qualified and truly independent people who might be sitting on these boards? Or will it just be more retired politicians and their mates copping a sweet ride - again?

    Under no circumstances should those who make the rules be able to benefit unfairly from them.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:30pm
    Plan B: male ALL commercial superannuation funds have HALF of their Boards made up of Union members. That's fair............and the same BS which is being run by this dishonest government at the moment.
    Of course we all understand that this scam run by this disgraceful government is the next scam to get people to vote for it. Some will be sucked in. Sadly those who are brain dead are rife for the picking...............
    LiveItUp
    26th Jun 2015
    11:26pm
    One thing is for certain it will cost more to run a lot of funds. Is this a cost cutting exercise in downsizing APRA and shifting it's regulations back to the directors?
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:32pm
    It is a scam Bonny because the funds which are supposedly under union control (they are not) are paying out much more to members than the retail funds..........which have a heap of business leeches sucking off the returns. So who would you rather have your super with if you had some? A no brainer.
    LiveItUp
    29th Jun 2015
    11:17am
    Years ago I had my super in an industry fund and I wasn't comfortable so I created my own SMSF. One of the best things I ever did. I worked out the fees I pay the other day and it's less than 0.03%.
    MICK
    29th Jun 2015
    1:10pm
    And you have no MANDATORY compliance costs? That is one of the reasons why many people do not do this as well as lack of expertise and the very high probability of putting too many eggs in the one baskets.
    Diamond Jim
    27th Jun 2015
    7:57am
    Abbott aided and abetted by Murdoch have started their fear campaign once again. Remember the 'Debt and Deficit disaster' that turned out to be crap? I hope ALL Seniors are not fooled by this rubbish the Abbott is once again putting out!
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    9:14am
    We still have the debt and deficit problems. We are still borrowing $95m every day.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    9:31am
    Bring back the Carbon Tax. It was working and doing a wonderful job. Now that it is gone the nation effectively gives the fossil fuel industry $8 billion every year. That's $22 million a day.
    And lets not forget Frank that your employer removed the Debt Ceiling so that HE could borrow as much as he wanted.
    Your post is the normal crock.
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    2:47pm
    That would cost a lot of jobs mick and increase costs to households. Why not simply increase taxes and reduce welfare to those who don't need it? Robb has just got China to drop it's import taxes on our coal and iron ore. A reintroduction of a carbon tax will destabilise the industry at a time when it is recovering.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:50pm
    The large number of coal mines which closed in Queensland last year cost a heap of jobs. The new opportunities created by renewables created tens of thousands of jobs.....killed off by one T. Abbott and his cronies....in the employ of the coal industry?
    And now you push the China story. My understanding is that the Free Trade Agreement with China has a the provision which allows China to BRING IN ITS OWN WORKERS. So China owns Australian assets like farms, transport and ports and can now bring in its OWN WORKERS???
    I really have no time for your coal owned government. It reminds me of the Titanic going down with the crew in charge talking about where the next cruise will be sailing to. Australia will suffer when it is the only country still standing in this coal owned game of musical chairs. Sadly you and your employer do not have the intelligence to understand that when things change they will turn quickly ....and ordinary Australians will be the ones to suffer, not politicians.
    Diamond Jim
    27th Jun 2015
    8:01am
    Remember the LNP changing the financial advice laws back so that all their business mates could once again rip workers off. Labor put in protections for consumers so that there could not be another Storm Financial debacle, and what did Abbott and his mates do.....changed them straight back in favour of these pricks who rip off unsuspecting clients!! Shame Shame. Shame!
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    9:32am
    Just of many things this deceitful government has done to shift money to the big end of town. Shameful. But don't expect the Murdoch media or the business owned TV stations to publicise this.
    Adrianus
    27th Jun 2015
    2:25pm
    Storm happened on Labor's watch. The question I have, which has never been answered is....."Why did ASIC sit on their hands for years while the complaints were rolling in???"
    Where was Storm's master trust fund held? Who were the directors on that board?
    What did they think about the little branch suddenly breaking all lending records?
    Follow the money.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:55pm
    Because ASIC is a show pony with no will to go after the crooks. It uses its budget to respond but never even bothers to pick up the phone, ring the crooks and end the corruption. So the bad stuff does not end.
    In response to the above red herring I offer my own: why did the Bottom of the Harbour tax dodges schemes go on for many years and why has the superannuation tax shelter for the rich not been closed despite THIS GOVERNMENT KNOWING WHAT IS HAPPENING?
    I certainly agree: FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. It nearly always leads to a rich person's bank account.
    Adrianus
    28th Jun 2015
    11:38am
    mick you are aware of First State's involvement. ASIC only acted when Manny and Julie tried to list on the ASX. Just goes to show how strong and tightly controlled the ASX is.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2015
    3:03pm
    ASIC is a worth less organisation which lets bad things happen. The top brass should all be sacked and replaced with people capable and willing to do the job. But guess what....these people are protected by both sides of politics. Labor AND Liberal!
    The second piece of your response ignores the festering sore in this country: the courts and the legal system generally. Why would you expect the police and other bodies to bother bringing charges when the high flyer crook shows up with an eminent Senior Counsel and then even if found guilty is let off with a warning. The best example I can recall (there have been many) is John Singleton doing like 100 km/h over the speed limit on the freeway near Bowral. Guilty: but no conviction record. Ha, ha, ha......just imagine if that had happened to somebody not connected? This story plays out over and over so do you really believe that statutory organisations are going to waste resources and go out of their way if THE COURTS REFUSE TO APPLY EQUAL JUSTICE?
    As I have responded before to you about this matter: lets have EQUAL representation on all Superannuation Boards....50% commercial directors and 50% union. That's the same logic you use. Ans whilst we are at it lets have 50% of TV presenters men and 50% women. Nine network would go into meltdown...but of course it is fair according to your logic.
    Lucky its a Sunday arvo Frank and I have a sense of humour to take the mick out of you. In all seriousness though just stop writing bits whose only intention is to put the opposition into a bad light so that your dishonest deceitful boss can plunder the Australian public, most of whom have no idea they are being done over. But they are starting to feel the heat.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2015
    5:14pm
    You are right about ASIC. Complaints to ASIC went into the too hard basket when I complained years ago about a certain financial advisor...the paperwork I was expected to fill in was horrendous and the time it took to get anywhere....I just gave up in the end.
    rratrr
    28th Jun 2015
    6:14pm
    Keep fighting Radish! I have been through Fed Parliament reps, State Parliament reps, FOS, ASIC and Fair Trading as well as the Bank responsible for employing the bastards. I am still waiting on 60 unanswered questions.
    Its a bit like "pass the parcel". The potato is too hot for anyone to handle. Maybe a radish can heat up the white collar collars?
    LiveItUp
    29th Jun 2015
    11:33am
    In the glory days of Storm etc I wrote to the watchdogs and got no co-operation from them. I was even told by one company if I said anything further against them I would be sued.
    Adrianus
    29th Jun 2015
    12:11pm
    In the glory days it was a $5b fund to which the board would have taken credit. Who would have the courage to put an end to it? Obviously not those who stood to gain it appears.
    MICK
    29th Jun 2015
    1:08pm
    There is an old saying: "follow the money trail". Never much changes.
    Strummer
    27th Jun 2015
    8:48am
    Joe is after your dough
    Wired
    27th Jun 2015
    12:03pm
    How about reforms to Politians super. Time you looked in the mirror Joe
    TREBOR
    27th Jun 2015
    1:42pm
    It's coming - but we need to band together to force it, alongside a raft of other changes.
    MICK
    27th Jun 2015
    8:58pm
    That is the problem with Australians TREBOR. Australians want somebody else to fix things whilst they are bending the elbow, dining out or away for the weekend. They also believe that the media is keeping them properly informed and fail to realise that their vote is being 'groomed' so that they vote for business interests rather than that of the country.
    We all get the government we deserve. It breaks your heart!
    geomac
    28th Jun 2015
    1:13am
    Why would the govt target industry super funds when they have outperformed the rest for years ? More to the point why did the govt loosen the reins on the finance sector that Labor introduced when so many incidents of malfeasance are being reported. If its not the millionaires bank ( Macquarie ) its ANZ or the latest IOOF. The question that should be asked is how do industry super funds consistently outperform the rest. Why industry funds have no issues with advisors falsifying signatures or sending their clients broke by pushing bad advice that enriches the advisor but leaves the client broke.
    I am sure the fact that the big banks would welcome the govts proposal but maybe they could solve their criminal problems by stopping the monetary inducements they give to their advisors for pushing their dodgy products.
    Abby
    28th Jun 2015
    7:47am
    Well said Wired there should be reforms done to the Politicians Super

    Why are Politicians not on the same Super Scheme as the peasants ?

    Are the Pollies some sort of Royalty ?

    They are a disgrace to Australia with their snouts in the trough !!!!
    rratrr
    28th Jun 2015
    8:12am
    One Australia. One Super. It's already set up for the Pollies so how hard would it be?Every one out there, no matter your political bias must help push for a Royal Commission. Senator John Williams and a few others need your support to clean this un-Australian mess up, and NOW.
    Adrianus
    28th Jun 2015
    8:33am
    You need to direct your inquiry to the Public Service Union. Good luck with that. They are the elite when it comes to employee benefits. Tony Abbott tried hard to get equality with maternity leave, same as Public Service, but was shouted down.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2015
    10:07am
    The 2 Royal Commissions now under way are election time witch hunts instigated by a government of corruption trying to stay in power. Nothing more. And then we have attempts to turn the national broadcaster into a commercial style propaganda machine for the big end of town. A feel a dictatorship coming our way!!!
    Dollars over Respect?
    28th Jun 2015
    7:14pm
    What I smell is most odorous. The wealth contained within the super funds is a newly discovered lucrative opportunity for "jobs for the boys". What a reward in being recommended for these positions! The majority of the industry super funds seem to be performing extremely well under their current governance systems, without having to cough up exorbitant salaries to recruit and pay for 'ex-big business' chairmen (ie "independent"?) and those other 'outside' independent board members. Once again, why fix what is not broken? If the intention is to institute more transparency, there should be no increase in top level management numbers - neither should there be any increases in the salary costs above the existing executive management costs. Then let's see who will be putting their greedy hands up for such roles, if these are the conditions! My experience is that a Chairman's role is the 'cherry on the top' at the end of a business career, for ageing executives who are owed big favours for providing that career 'leg up' to more junior (board) executives (or pollies). Lurks and perks (luncheons, abundant alcohol, drivers, accommodation, flights AND out of pocket expenses). All skimming off the top for just a few hours 'work' (ie overview?) each month. It's just not needed! When the boards make governing mistakes, they don't have to make up for it out of their pockets - they walk. I resent my savings being used up for opportunities as is being suggested for high level executives to enhance their individual retirement states by such opportunities to rip even more out of the system.
    rratrr
    28th Jun 2015
    7:31pm
    What is the solution?
    Abby
    29th Jun 2015
    6:49am
    Agree with you DoR
    Definitely sounds like a job for failed and retired Politicians .... this will have to be paid for by the contributors.
    Dollars over Respect?
    28th Jun 2015
    8:01pm
    Perhaps, no management changes where funds are performing extremely well. Changes only where obviously needed to provide clarity and to improve performance for the super contributors/owners? By this, I mean appointment of an outside chairman and one third of existing board members should be dismissed and replaced by high performing executives who win their place by their individual proven talent...?
    Fred
    29th Jun 2015
    7:21am
    Mick I thought you would be happy with the proposed changes as this is written in above report. " The measures mirror recommendations from the Labor Government commissioned Cooper Review in 2010."
    Not Senile Yet!
    30th Jun 2015
    1:56am
    Super means Money.....LOTS OF MONEY!!!!!
    Money and control or access is about more pigs at the Trough!!!!
    They are already tightly controlled......and they already have highly paid CEO's!!!!
    Sounds like more jobs for the Boys to me....Jobs as Directors for Retired Political MP's or Favours kickbacks!!!!
    They do not need Director or Boards......what they need is to be not taxed by our Government at all!!!
    Fred
    30th Jun 2015
    8:02am
    I totally agree with you. I do say however that the Old Age Pension should be a right as the vast majority of us have worked all our lives paid taxes and deserve to have some comfort in our old age and not have to scrimp and scrap. As for this Government looking after the Big end of town has it not just brought down the company Tax on small businesses which employ the majority of workers in this country you can hardly say that these small companies are the Big end of town. If this cut in company tax assists may be a few of them to employ another person then that is a few more of the dole.
    Adrianus
    1st Jul 2015
    11:23am
    Not, that is a typical leftist statement. When nobody is in charge, nobody is also responsible and somebody, as well as anybody, is to blame when things go wrong. The Boards should not have nobody and include somebody or anybody, so that when things go wrong nobody is out of sight.