CHAPTER 13

28th Report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation
Choice of Fund
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 13

SUMMARY

13.1 Much of the evidence to the Committee supported the introduction of choice of fund, or at least accepted the policy direction set by the Government. However, there is a deep division between specialist providers of financial products who are anxious that choice proceed in accordance with the Government's announced schedule, and others who, for a variety of reasons, advocate a delay or propose that choice be optional for a limited period, or that choice be limited to investment within a fund.

The former group, which includes the banks, some specialist product providers and some of the major life companies, have products ready for the introduction of choice and are confident that they can prepare key features statements for their products before 1 July 1998.

The latter group, which includes the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, consumer and legal advocates, some major employers, small employers and many of the major consulting groups, do not consider that employees or employers will be sufficiently educated about choice. Concern was also expressed about the tasks that trustees and employers must complete prior to the starting date. Further, this group wishes to see the final form of the legislation, including the regulations that will govern key features statements, before proceeding. At the time of writing, this information is not to hand.

13.2 In order for the choice of fund initiative to achieve its objectives, employers and employees will both require education about choice of fund. Employers, particularly small employers, will need to be advised about their obligations, responsibilities and options. Employees will require information about their rights and how to make a sensible choice. Many witnesses expressed concern about the cost of a choice regime to both superannuation providers (in terms of high marketing and commission costs) and to employers.

13.3 It is important that choice of fund works primarily for the benefit of employees rather than providers or employers.

13.4 Educational material associated with key features statements should discourage people from exercising choice of fund until they have adequately informed themselves of the consequences of changing funds, and understand what is being offered to them.

13.5 If employee choice proceeds, key features statements should incorporate clear warnings about the consequences of choosing a fund, such as the adequacy and coverage of insurance and the possibility that insurance cover, where formerly provided, may lapse. The statements should also incorporate a clear explanation about the relative risks associated with each option.

13.6 The default fund must provide adequate protection for those people who cannot or are unwilling to exercise choice. Several witnesses recommended that the employer should not choose the default fund, and that the relevant industry fund should be the default fund.

13.7 In circumstances where there is a dispute between the employer and the employee in matters relating to choice of fund, there is a need for a nominated arbitrator. Some witnesses considered that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was the most effective vehicle for this task, although numerous witnesses, including a number of trade unions, argued that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission had better expertise to deal with such disputes. However, a recent Federal Court decision has removed the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's powers to arbitrate on disputes. The Government is working with interested parties to find a low cost dispute resolution mechanism. The Committee also intends to conduct a round table group discussion to discuss this matter.

13.8 The choice regime would represent very significant change to administrative arrangements for superannuation. If it is to proceed as planned on 1 July 1998, early passage of the legislation and completion of the regulations on matters such as disclosure will be necessary to provide legislative certainty. However, a large number of witnesses expressed the view that a delay of at least a year would be prudent.

13.9 There is considerable evidence that people will perceive key features statements as very complex. Given the limited amount of time for employees to be adequately informed, there is a great deal of anxiety about potential responsibilities and liabilities. However, the Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, and officers of the Australian Taxation Office, have assured the Committee that the necessary information will be available for new employees before choice is introduced. The Minister and the officers expressed confidence that sufficient time remains for the necessary arrangements to be put in place.