The outcomes of the Cooper Review need to be analysed to determine what has worked and what has not, according to a Super Review roundtable conducted during last week’s Conference of Major Superannuation Funds (CMSF).
Key panellists at the roundtable said that while Superstream had been one of the undoubted successes flowing from the Cooper Review process, there were question marks around some other elements, including MySuper.
Energy Super chief executive, Robin Petrou said the superannuation industry was now a good number of years into the implementation of the Cooper Review recommendations and it was time to look at what was working and what was not.
Looking at the implementation of MySuper, Petrou said that looking back there was no question that it had actually represented a cost to super funds and that the savings that had been envisaged had not actually been achieved.
Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) executive director, policy and research, David Haynes said most of the cost-savings had come from extracting advice out of super and the implementation of Superstream.
“And the cost-savings in both of those areas are the billions of dollars,” he said. “So there are benefits from the whole Stronger Super process but perhaps less attributable to MySuper.”
LegalSuper chief executive, Andrew Proebstl said that while he agreed with the benefits inherent in Superstream, he wondered whether the main beneficiaries had been the superannuation administrators rather than the superannuation funds themselves.
Petrou said that MySuper itself had not been a great idea, while SuperStream had proved to be a great idea.
