When 'independence' depends on one's political philosophyBY DAVID GALLAGHER | THURSDAY, 23 FEB 2017 5:22PMI have been struck this past week by the politicisation of the term 'independence' when it is used in the context of superannuation fund governance. Indeed, the political philosophy ... Upgrade your subscription to access this article
Join the growing community of superannuation
professionals with unlimited access to our latest news, research and analysis of the industry.
Become a premium subscriber today. |
Latest News
Mega super fund opens first international office
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has opened its first international office in London to build out a "leading global investment capability."
Aware builds property portfolio, adds 726 homes
The super fund will add more than 700 homes to Melbourne's housing market across two new developments.
Actuaries Institute proposes new performance test measure
The Actuaries Institute has proposed revising the annual superannuation performance test, so it better aligns trustees' investments with the best financial interests of members.
OneSuper to take on more super products
Following on from the news that it would now be home to Spaceship Super, OneSuper will further bolster its funds under management through the transfer of another sub-plan, home to several super products.
Cover Story
The super, super fund
DEANNE STEWART
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AWARE SUPER
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AWARE SUPER
Aware Super has marked its expansion into Europe with the grand opening of its London office.
Well firstly I believe we are all political animals. Progressives or conservatives. As a corollary of that notion, people who sail under the flag of 'independent' also fall into one or the other camp.
Unions in Australia are mostly progressive and Employers (and their Associations) are mostly conservative.
There are Employers who have balanced views and a sense of justice and the same applies to Unions.
Unions and Employers regularly clash.
Universal Superannuation was promulgated by progressive Unions in response to the pre-existing (Defined Benefit) Super Funds which were mostly run by conservative Employers. That major reform could not have been achieved without the assistance of progressive Employers.
Rarely do Unions and Employers work on a venture together, but whenever they do they generally succeed.
Unions wanted to improve the lives of their members in retirement whilst many Employers desired to do likewise for their employees. Call it a form of paternalism if you like.
So the two parties have for many years worked together with only the interests of the Fund Members at heart as Directors of Industry Super Boards.
Over those years, both parties saw merit in including people with specialist skills on their Boards and that process of evolution is continuing.
By any measure, and over their entire life, Industry Super Funds have been remarkedly successful, partially due, I believe, to the fact that two traditional enemies have come together and striven to achieve a common goal, namely, the best possible retirement outcomes for the members.
The desire to change that model can in my view only be motivated by political bias!