ISA accuses Government of enabling fee gouges

Reports that ASIC is investigating big bank superannuation funds over an alleged fee gouge worth over $1 billion has led Industry Super Australia (ISA) to further criticise the Federal Government’s proposed superannuation reforms.

ASIC is reportedly investigating bank-owned and retail superannuation funds over conduct that may have cost consumers over $1 billion from 2013 – 2017. Big bank funds allegedly delayed transferring members into lower cost super products in this time, potentially even swapping them into more expensive ‘choice’ products.

ISA has used this news to continue its attack on the Government’s superannuation bills that are currently before parliament, using it as further evidence for their argument that the reforms do not adequately respond to the problems facing the superannuation industry.

Related News:

ISA public affairs director, Matt Linden, said that the Government’s proposed legislation fails to prevent the behaviour leading to the fee gouge from occurring again.

The bill before parliament “will see the retail fund boards – which oversaw the fee gauge – remain virtually unchanged while disrupting industry funds by imposing quotas of independent directors that, in the retail sector, have failed to protect member interests,” he said.

ISA believes that the Government’s bills not only allow such behaviour, but may go as far as to enable it to happen.

“The bills seek to broaden choice to enable the banks to spruik their super products to even more unwary Australians without adequate disclosure and safeguards,” Linden said.

This is the latest in a series of accusations that ISA has levelled at the Government regarding its superannuation reforms. This week, it said that the proposed bills were an ideological attack on unions rather than an evidence-based solution to superannuation problems.

Recommended for you




If ASIC is actually concerned with gouging they should be looking into government run State Trustees. They are an evil and almost criminal organisation whos sole role is to make as much profit from the estates of deceased people they tricked into signing their ridiculously expensive contract.

How can anyone think paying between 4 and 9% pa of the estates value plus is in the best interests of anyone.


Add new comment