APRA challenges union/employer board nominations

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has sent a clear signal to superannuation funds that it is unhappy with the manner in which some unions and employer bodies can nominate their officials to the boards of superannuation funds virtually without challenge.

The regulator has pointed to the danger that such processes will deliver appointees who are not appropriately qualified and whose selection cannot then be vetoed by the super fund board.

APRA deputy chair, Helen Rowell has used an address to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) to make clear the regulator’s concerns about such arrangements and to urge superannuation funds to consider changes in the context of adopting new governance arrangements.

Related News:

Reinforcing APRA’s view on the desirability of superannuation boards having at least one-third independent directors, Rowell said her view had not changed since 2015 in the context of independent directors broadening the skills and capabilities and improving decision-making.

“They [independent directors] are also well-placed to hold other directors accountable, particularly in relation to conflicts of interest,” she said. “This is as relevant for directors of industry and other not-for profit funds that may face potential conflicts with the interests of their stakeholders (such as nominating organisations), as it is for directors of retail funds.”

Discussing what APRA believed better superannuation fund governance looked like, Rowell nominated a clearly articulated view of the optimal board composition (in terms of size, skill mix, and relevant diversity considerations) including independent directors.

She then also nominated: “A director selection process that provides a clear role for the board (and not just nominating bodies) in the appointment of candidates, with a view to ensuring that candidates bring the skills and capabilities needed to oversight execution of the trustee’s strategy and its ongoing business operations and are a ‘good fit’”.


Related Content

ASIC wants product intervention power with teeth

All the participants in the financial services food chain need to be made accountable for their actions so that product manufacturers cannot blame pla...more

ABA argues against collective BEAR punishment

The Bank Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) should apply to individuals ensuring multiple bank executives are not held responsible for the actions...more

ASIC updates fee transparency for super and managed investment funds

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has issued an update regarding its work around the improvement of transparency and compara...more




Finally some common sense in the oversight of these boards. Good to see APRA driving some positive change - now we just have to see it implemented?

Agree Paul, appears ASIC were never going to take these groups to task around proper governance, so it is refreshing to see APRA has stepped up. Anyone at an AFSL level or a significant commerce board knows the requirement to disclose and recuse themselves from conflicted issues that may arise. It would be interesting indeed if under FOI a third party were to read meeting minutes from the boars of these funds; surely that should be the right of their members?

Add new comment