Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 14

Bring on the Council of Superannuation Custodians

Governments of all political persuasions have a problem; trustee confidence in the superannuation system is declining. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to support this, just read the ‘Letters to the Editor’ columns in any newspaper or listen to talk-back radio. But it’s not just anecdotal evidence, as two recent surveys quantify this lack of confidence in the system.

The first survey was the SPAA-Vanguard report released late last year. The actuarial firm Rice Warner was engaged to undertake a 69-question survey to identify the financial needs of SMSF trustees and review their general concerns about retirement. A key finding that emerged from the 384 trustees who responded was quite revealing.

They said legislative change was the ‘biggest risk’ to retiring comfortably retirement, with 83% listing it as ‘their biggest concern’. What people want from government is certainty about the rules governing their retirement savings, and this survey clearly indicates they believe they are not getting it. Quite the contrary. What government is doing with the rules of the game is more likely to keep them awake at night than their investment portfolios.

It was the same outcome for the survey SPAA released in conjunction with Russell Investments. Intimate with Self Managed Superannuation – the third benchmark study into Australia’s rapidly growing SMSF sector – was conducted by the independent research firm CoreData which surveyed 1,555 Australian consumers of whom 437 were SMSF trustees.

In terms of confidence in the system, the outcome largely mirrored the earlier report. It was waning, although SMSF trustees were less pessimistic than APRA fund members. Constant government change to the superannuation system was identified as a key reason behind this lack of confidence.

Surveys support the anecdotes

The findings of these surveys have resonated through the SMSF industry. The anecdotal is now hard evidence. It’s in this context that the announcement on 5 April 2013 by the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Bill Shorten, in which he promised to set up a Council of Superannuation Custodians, has to be seen.

It’s worth quoting Shorten in full:

“The Government will establish a Council of Superannuation Custodians to ensure that any future changes are consistent with an agreed Charter of Superannuation Adequacy and Sustainability.

“The Charter will be developed against the principles of certainty, adequacy, fairness and sustainability. The Charter will clearly outline the core objects, values and principles of the Australian superannuation system.

“The Council will be charged with assessing future policy against the Charter and providing a report to be tabled in Parliament.”

There’s no shortage of motherhood in those fours sentences. Some observers greeted the concept of such a Council with a degree of cynicism. But across the industry – whether it was SMSF, retail, industry or public sectors – there was broad agreement on the concept of such a council.

It appeared to indicate that the Government had finally recognised that all the media speculation surrounding possible changes to the tax treatment of superannuation in the weeks preceding the 5 April statement had taken its toll on the system and it was time to take some of the political heat out of the debate. A proposal to set up a Council was a sound starting place.

It’s been the industry’s contention for some time that the continual changes to superannuation and, more importantly, the tax regime around it, were undermining our universal system. It seemed from our vantage point that the original goal of superannuation that both sides of politics signed up to – giving the people the opportunity to be self-sufficient in retirement – was being lost in a debate about the equity, or otherwise, of the tax concessions.

Equally worrying was the increasing tendency by government to see superannuation as a revenue measure to meet other spending commitments – a honey pot that keeps growing exponentially.

Start discussing how the Council will operate

Since the Minister’s statement, and the immediate media flurry, discussion about the Council has largely dried up. In my opinion, that’s a pity, because there are some critical questions to be asked about how this Council will work. Would it reduce the political point-scoring and elevate the policy debate? Would it give people more confidence in the system?

The Minister was short on details, but it seems a step in the right direction to have a principles-based charter. Any future changes to the superannuation system would then have to be assessed against them. Reporting to Parliament seems another positive. I suspect Shorten believes it would strengthen the Council’s arm and, at the very least, should make it harder for the government of the day to blithely ignore its deliberations.

Who would sit on the Council would be critical. The Government blurb said ‘eminent representatives from the community, industry and regulators’. Hard to argue with that stated aim, although it must be said all governments do find it difficult to keep politics out of appointments. But it is possible. The Reserve Bank board is a good example of where the members’ political sympathies seem largely irrelevant.

It’s impossible to remove superannuation from the political debate. Nor should it be. In a parliamentary democracy such as ours, a public policy as important as superannuation should be vigorously debated. No one, including the Minister, believes the system can be totally politically neutered.

Rather, a Council working properly would have the capacity to debate issues, to offer alternative thinking to that coming out of the federal bureaucracy in much the same way as the Productivity Commission does now on important economic issues. By doing this it could lay the groundwork for more constructive public debate.

At the very least it would give trustees, the cornerstone of our system, greater faith that the principles underpinning the system are adhering to ‘certainty, adequacy, fairness and sustainability’. That has to be an improvement on what we have now.


Graeme Colley is the Director, Technical & Professional Standards at SPAA, the SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia. He lectures at the University of Western Sydney in the Masters of Commerce course and at the University of NSW as an adjunct lecturer.




Leave a Comment:



Why the FSI should interest SMSF members

Hey baby boomers, pension is not a dirty word

It’s time to do things differently in retirement policy


Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates


10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?


Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?


D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.


Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.


Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.