Will the real Tim Wilson please stand up?

Outsider is giving 10 out of 10 to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for deftly avoiding becoming entangled in the somewhat arcane politics of superannuation.

Indeed, Outsider is wondering quite what the rather staid executive of APRA made of a claim by the chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on

Economics, Tim Wilson, that the Government was being “bullied and intimidated” by industry superannuation funds.

Related News:

It seems that the bullying and intimidation Wilson was referring to was the rather vanilla television advertising campaign launched by Industry Super Australia aimed at the Government’s Your Future, Your Super legislation.

So, hearing Wilson’s pleas to APRA, Outsider was left to wonder whether this was the same Tim Wilson who prosecuted the Government’s campaign against franking credits during the last Federal Election, the same Tim Wilson who has used his committee to relentlessly interrogate superannuation funds over their activities and the same Tim Wilson who is now campaigning to put home ownership ahead of super?

Are there two Tim Wilsons, one of whom is a victim?




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Go Tim!! About time someone had the balls to put union super under the spotlight.pity it wasn't a blowtorch.

The real Tim Wilson is using his parliamentary position to advance the interests of his rich mates.

No surprise Dick to see your comment here defending union super. Think the heat is getting a bit warm as we all start uncovering the crap going on behind the scenes with union super, otherwise why else would you be so worried about Tim and the parliamentary committee (that btw has BOTH Labor and Libs on it) questioning the wrong doing.

I admit i am blatantly anti-union super funds, but you keep pretending that you're unbiased which from every single comment you make, shows that is pure b*llshit.

I acknowledge your position and some of your arguments do give cause of reflection.

But I take a broader view to the overall value of having Australian citizens with the means to provide for their retirement. Wilson pretends to and the Outsider has made a good call. I accept no all is dandy with the industry super funds (but you know this side of superannuation better than I do), but I know that not all is dandy and shiny on the retail side of superannuation despite all the bleating that goes on here.

Tim Wilson could run rings around Frydenberg. One of the few Liberals in Canberra at the moment.

It appears to me that The Outsider is the ignorant one here. Maybe you should focus on the lack of APRA action in carrying out their legislative responsibilities. The SIS legislation has been very clear since its introduction, that Superannuation money can ONLY be used for the retirement benefits of members.

What we are seeing are constant TV advertising and sponsorship by the Industry Fund movement spending members money for the Industry Fund group, and not for retirement purposes. The Industry Fund group is established to pursue political agendas, and is using members benefits for this, but APRA does not have the integrity to challenge them - I guess APRA and ASIC and the Industry Funds all have the same political preferences and agendas.

It is a pity that The Outsider does not see the issues either.

The retail funds would not like this - after all they use their clients' fees for behind the scenes lobbying. The retail side do not need to do any TV advertising. It is quite reasonable to say that both sides are looking after their clients' superannuation/pension scheme interests.

Wrong, industry funds use member funds for advertising, political lobbying and corporate boxes at the MCG....retail funds charge a transparent fee which becomes revenue and from this they can do whatever they want as profits are an issue for their shareholders not members. Not for profit is such a load of BS....

Both retail and industry funds charge fees which are more of less transparent. Both retail and industry funds use a portion of fees for advancing and defending their positions on behalf of members and shareholders in the case of retail funds and on behalf of members of industry funds. Both sides would be remiss if they didn't. It's how business works. You would have to be naive to think otherwise.

Not all of the retail funds' profits go to shareholders (the fund members don't get any by that stage). Some of the profits go towards lobbying (just not by television advertising). It would be naive to think otherwise. It would be annoying if they didn't.

yer yer yer, keep hearing it seeing nothing. Hume would rather run over a dog than tackle the carve out bull####. hi, im here on a 12 month visa, ok, here is a job for you, give personal advice for our ponzi scheme, thanks...... lib party ...... crickets

Add new comment