InvestSMART

Super comes with a health warning

Perhaps it could be considered a case of misleading labelling.
By · 12 Dec 2011
By ·
12 Dec 2011
comments Comments
Perhaps it could be considered a case of misleading labelling.

PERHAPS it could be considered a case of misleading labelling. Health Super describes itself as ''the industry fund for the people who care'', yet it invests members' contributions in corporations that endanger public health. As reported in The Saturday Age, three multinational tobacco companies are among the top 10 international investments by the superannuation fund set up for workers in health and community services.

It is hard to overstate the inappropriateness of this. While doctors and nurses work indefatigably to treat those suffering smoking-related diseases and to relieve the suffering of patients dying from lung cancer and heart disease, their hard-earned money is endorsing those whose products cause these maladies.

Like many of its competitors, Health Super does offer a ''socially responsible investment option'', but this too comes with a caveat: ''If a company is materially involved in certain negative activities, it may be excluded from SRI options, depending on each individual investment manager's approach'' - which would appear to make the choice fairly meaningless.

Surely the passage of legislation mandating plain packaging for cigarettes is indication enough that the government recognises the costs - to personal and economic health - of these products, yet superannuation funds are not alone in taking a counterproductive approach.

In the last Senate sitting week of the year, Greens senator Richard Di Natale presented his second reading speech on the Government Investment Funds Amendment (Ethical Investments) Bill 2011. He argued that the Future Fund and other nation building funds - including the Health and Hospitals Fund - be required to make their investments according to ethical investment guidelines. As well as providing growth, he said, it is important that the investments should not be counter to the interests of the broader Australian community. Yet the Future Fund has invested $36.5 million in Philip Morris and $46.4 million in British American Tobacco.

Thanks to reforms by the Keating government, every Australian who has been part of the workforce since the early 1990s has superannuation. But it is fair to assume most are detached investors, knowing neither how much they have squirrelled away nor how that money is invested. The situation with Health Super should remind all investors of the importance of doing their own research and putting pressure on their fund managers not to invest in industries they deem unworthy of their support.

Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

The article reports that Health Super — the industry fund for health and community services workers — invests members' contributions in corporations that endanger public health, with three multinational tobacco companies listed among its top 10 international investments.

Yes, Health Super offers a 'socially responsible investment' option, but the article points out a key caveat: companies may only be excluded from SRI options 'depending on each individual investment manager's approach,' which the article suggests can make the SRI choice fairly meaningless.

The article argues it's inappropriate because doctors and nurses treat smoking-related illnesses while members' retirement savings are invested in companies whose products cause those very diseases — a clear conflict with the fund's health-sector identity.

Yes. The article notes criticism of nation-building funds and cites the Future Fund as having invested in tobacco companies, specifically reporting $36.5 million in Philip Morris and $46.4 million in British American Tobacco.

The article mentions Greens senator Richard Di Natale presenting the Government Investment Funds Amendment (Ethical Investments) Bill 2011, which argued that the Future Fund and other nation-building funds should be required to follow ethical investment guidelines so their investments don't conflict with broader community interests.

The article uses the passage of plain-packaging legislation as evidence that government recognises the personal and economic health costs of cigarettes — yet despite that recognition, some superannuation and government funds continue to invest in tobacco, a practice the article calls counterproductive.

The article urges everyday investors — many of whom are 'detached' and unsure how their money is invested — to do their own research and to put pressure on their fund managers if they don't want their super invested in industries they deem unworthy, such as tobacco.

According to the article, choosing an SRI option may not guarantee exclusion of tobacco because exclusions can depend on each investment manager's approach; investors should therefore verify fund policies and press fund managers if avoiding tobacco is important to them.