ASFA accuses Govt of “watering down” choice
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has picked up where it left off prior to the Federal Election and is back on the lobby trail appealing for the re-instatement of compulsory quarterly reporting of super funds to members.
ASFA chief executive Philippa Smith has slammed the Federal Government’s proposal to abolish quarterly reporting by employers of superannuation payments, claiming the move will jeopardise the safety of superannuation.
“As of January 1, we will revert back to a pot-pourri of workplace legislation that varies widely from state to state,” Smith said.
“This doesn’t offer the uniform protection required, and increases complexity,” she said.
In light of the recent passing of the choice of fund legislation, ASFA has attacked the Federal Government for back peddling and “watering down employees’ control” over their superannuation savings.
“Choice of fund is supposed to be about empowering consumers, giving them the right to direct where their compulsory super is invested,” Smith said.
“This move is aimed at making life easier for employers, and small employers in particular, but reducing employees’ rights and information is certainly not the way to go.”
The Tax Laws Amendment (Superannuation Reporting) Bill 2004 will reverse the requirement introduced in July 2003 by the government for employers to report quarterly to employees the amount and destination of superannuation contributions made on their behalf.
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a Perth financial services firm following payments to its clients by the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort after a failed managed investment scheme.
Bravura chief executive Andrew Russell has announced he will be stepping down from the company, just under two years after his appointment.
Financial advice businesses with a younger, wealthier client base are enjoying higher valuations and increased attention from potential buyers than those with older clients.
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
