Consumer group, Super Consumers Australia (SCA) has backed amendments to the Government’s Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members’ Interests First) Bill which would exempt workers in dangerous occupations.
The SCA, and offshoot of consumer group, Choice, noted that it had written to all cross-bench senators stating its support for the Government’s bill and urging them to be wary of claims being made regarding occupation and industry risk in the absence of any supporting data or evidence.
It recommended that if senators were contemplating exemptions or carve-outs, that fund trustees should be required to demonstrate that insurance would be in the best interests of a specific cohort, including data on dependents and the availability of existing public compensation and support schemes.
However, it said today that it supported a Government amendment which allowed trustees to exempt emergency service workers, or to seek an actuarial certificate to exempt certain dangerous occupations from the “riskiest quartile” of Australian occupations.
It said it also backed an amendment from Tasmanian independent Senator, Jacqui Lambie which would oblige fund trustees to request and store information on whether a fund member had dependent children.
There is a need for Australia’s superannuation funds to simplify their investment menus, according to the firm, given over a third of funds have more than 30 options, of which one or more are “arguably subscale”.
The research house is set to offer research ratings of superannuation funds for the first time amid growing demand from financial advisers.
Treasury is calling for submissions on its draft regulations in relation to the calculation of the proposed Division 296 tax.
Initially intended to offer a “simple, cost-effective” option for Aussies invested in default fund options, a super consultant has weighed in on what the scheme has actually done for members.
Stop the rot. This mob doesn't represent consumers. I work for a not for profit on the front line helping people every single day of my life who are able to survive because of their disability insurance in their superannuation. Their suggestion "to be wary of claims being made regarding occupation and industry risk in the absence of any suporting data or evidence" is foul.
Do they dispute that people in physical jobs suffer more jobs than office workers. Get real. This mob doesn't understand a thing about the importance of insurance in super. They can come and explain to me and every other welfare worker I speak with everyday why removing a safety net at any level like this should be supported. They might learn something. Or do we live in a world now where calling yourself a consumer organisation means you're actually middle class and educated and your job is more about status than substance.
Get into the real world.
Add new comment