FSC chief executive Sally Loane said the council was supportive of measures contained within the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Superannuation, Your Choice) Bill 2019, which was introduced to Parliament late last year and seeks to amend super guarantee laws to ensure workers under enterprise agreements are able to choose their own super fund to contribute to.
However, Ms Loane said the amendments, which were previously introduced to Parliament in 2017 and failed to pass both houses, should be updated to start earlier than the proposed date of 1 July 2020.
“It’s unacceptable after nearly 30 years of our compulsory system that workplace agreements are still allowed to force employees into a particular super fund, and prevent employees from having their super guarantee payments made into a fund of their choosing,” she said.
“The prevention of choice under the current arrangements forces many Australians into new funds they did not choose, creating problems for individuals such as those who have an SMSF, made specific investment choices in their existing fund or have chosen insurance levels, effectively forcing these individuals to maintain multiple super accounts.”
Ms Loane pointed out that affected individuals, including SMSF trustees, would be significantly disadvantaged through having to maintain an additional super account because of employer-specific agreements, with Productivity Commission modelling suggesting those retiring with two super accounts were 6 per cent worse off.
“We don’t have laws which force people into particular banks, why does this still exist for super, one of the biggest assets Australians will have?” she said.
“The FSC is a long-standing supporter of choice in super and has consistently advocated for the removal of restrictions on super choice in workplace agreements.”
I agree entirely, in this day and age everyone should have the freedom to decide where to park their money and not be forced to park it in union run funds
My wife’s new employer doesn’t offer choice. Neither did her previous employer. She has her old 3rd super fund with a lot of life insurance and she can’t change that due to family health issues – she’d have massive exclusions if she tried to take out any new policy. She’d like to have only 1 fund, but has 3.
I assume Ms Loane has read the explanatory memorandum to the 2016 superannuation legislation amendment bill 2016 which states the following:
• Three options were considered.
– Maintain the status quo (Option 1)
– Extend choice to employees under enterprise agreements and workplace determinations made after 1 July 2016 (Option 2)
– Extend choice to all employees under existing and new enterprise agreements and workplace determinations after 1 July 2016, and employers must offer a choice of fund form to all existing employees (Option 3)
• Treasury undertook public consultation (for 6 weeks) on draft legislation and explanatory material for Option 2.
• Option 2 is the best option because it extends choice in a meaningful way while minimising compliance costs for employers.
She should focus her time on things which have a more positive impact.
I think Ms Sloane’s point is that the legislation (Option 2) was first put to parliament in 2016/17. It’s now 2020, the legislation hasn’t been passed, the proposed start date (assuming it gets through) is now 2021, and all the while people are still being forced into Funds they don’t want.
Simple question: what’s the bloody hold-up? All employers should be obliged to offer choice of Fund to all employees.