Government-run super fund a ‘dud’ idea

bernie dean ISA andrew bragg Future Fund

26 October 2021
| By Liam Cormican |
image
image
expand image

Industry Super Australia (ISA) thinks a proposed government-run super fund would be rife for pork-barrelling and will “dud” workers out of thousands of dollars.

Its modelling showed that a 30-year-old worker in such a government-run fund would pay exorbitant fees, earn lower investment returns and end up $126,000 worse off at retirement compared with being in a top-performing industry fund.

“This plan would funnel millions of Australian workers into an expensive and poor performing government-controlled super fund – all so politicians can get their hands on people’s money,” ISA chief executive, Bernie Dean, said.

Earlier this year, Liberal senator Andrew Bragg reignited the national fund debate when he said the Government should “take its responsibilities more seriously” by making the Future Fund the default fund.

If the government-run fund was to go ahead, new workers would be entered into it by default unless they opted to join a different fund.

ISA said their modelling reinforced earlier evidence from the Productivity Commission (PC) that a government-run super fund would be prone to political interference and riddled with conflicts of interest.

“With almost unchecked power to spend workers’ savings, [the Government] could find it hard to resist ladling out money for pork barrels in marginal seats, all for the purpose of chasing votes rather than good investment returns,” ISA said.

According to ISA, political ideology could also trump the financial interest of members especially when a government makes itself the investment officer, trustee, owner, regulator and supervisor.  

The ISA supported the PC’s earlier research which found internationally government-run super funds invested conservatively as few governments could withstand the political risk of negative returns during market downturns, leading to less money at retirement and more pressure on the Aged Pension.

“And if the government-fund delivered lousy investment returns the taxpayer would be expected to bail it out – which combined with the higher pensions costs is a recipe for higher taxes,” ISA said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

7 hours 51 minutes ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

2 months ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

2 months 1 week ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

3 weeks 3 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

2 weeks 3 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

2 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS