IT TOOK him more than a year to wrestle with the corporate governance and poor transparency demons, but Bill Shorten finally admitted publicly what the super industry has privately known for years: corporate governance is lacking and reform is long overdue.
It has been quite a journey for Shorten, and the Gillard government, as both have their roots in the industrial relations movement and are therefore perceived as being soft on any reforms that weaken the powerful relationship between unions and industry funds, many of which sit on the boards as trustees.
In a low-key statement released to an online trade magazine, I&T News, published on day two of the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services, Shorten said he wanted to put before Parliament legislation to improve corporate governance this year.
That perception of softness to the union movement deepened when the Cooper review was released in late 2010 and Shorten opted to bury, defer or ignore most of the recommendations that would strengthen corporate governance, lift transparency and change the composition of the boards of super funds.
It then turned into a political issue with the opposition when the government commissioned Paul Costello to look into a Stronger Super reform package but the consultative committee was not allowed to touch on key governance issues such as transparency regarding how much trustees are paid, or the composition of super boards, because they were excluded from the terms of reference.
But with some scandals erupting in the sector in the past 18 months, the heat was on for change in a sector that is supposed to guard the retirement savings of Australians.
The need for change intensified with revelations that the $6 billion MTAA Super fund is being investigated by APRA there is a payroll tax investigation into the MTAA motoring trade organisation, and there is legal action against the national secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, Bernie Riordan, over $1.8 million in fees he allegedly earned while serving on four boards connected with members' superannuation funds. In a statement of claim lodged with the Federal Court in July, it was alleged that Riordan, starting in 1998, collected $1.8 million in fees from sitting on the boards of the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme, FuturePlus, Chifley Financial Services and Mert. The claims have been rejected, but highlight the need for better transparency.
The brutal reality is Shorten and the Gillard government did not have much choice but to make some public statements on corporate governance. It became an imperative when the financial services regulator, APRA, and the corporate regulator, ASIC, both started to flex their muscles on the issue of governance.
Shorten is now trying to go on the front foot with his statement that he now wants director fees disclosed, along with a better handling of related party transactions and greater trustee board diversity. "The current superfund governance is inadequate and lags banking, insurance and listed companies," he said. His office later reaffirmed these comments.
With super funds making decisions on the fourth-largest pool of managed money in the world, largely built from compulsory savings, the bulb is starting to go off in people's heads that the current murky system cannot continue.
Few super funds release details of how much they pay directors because they don't have to. Indeed, some super funds don't even bother to inform members who the directors are, how long they have been on the board, how many times they attend board meetings, or give details of their background. They are not required to provide members with the full set of audited accounts, unlike public companies, and they are not required to list when they buy or sell investments, whether they bought them at market price or sold them at a fire-sale price, or who the buyer was.
In most cases trustees are appointed to the boards of industry funds and therefore cannot be sacked, no matter how incompetent. If a super fund merges with another, it does not have to get permission from members. Members have no control if their fund is being merged with an inferior one with an inferior portfolio of assets.
Consolidation is a ticking bomb for members, as the pace accelerates with the introduction of MySuper. In the past decade the number of industry funds has fallen from 165 to 65.
As funds continue to consolidate over the next few years and asset bases expand, there will be a heavier concentration of retirement savings being controlled by a smaller number of financial managers and trustees. It is time to bring the industry into line with banking instead of being seen as a retirement home for some clapped-out union officials.
aferguson@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What corporate governance problems exist in Australian super funds?
The article says governance in many super funds is weak and lacks transparency. Common problems include limited disclosure of director pay, little information about who sits on trustee boards or their attendance and backgrounds, no requirement to publish full audited accounts or detailed investment trades, and trustees who are effectively unremovable once appointed.
What reforms has Bill Shorten proposed to improve super fund governance?
According to the article, Bill Shorten has publicly said he wants legislation to improve corporate governance this year. He has called for disclosure of director fees, better handling of related‑party transactions, and greater trustee board diversity to bring super fund governance more in line with banks, insurers and listed companies.
Why is disclosure of director fees and related‑party dealings important for superannuation members?
The article explains that few funds currently reveal how much they pay directors or detail related‑party transactions. Disclosure matters because members need transparency to judge whether trustees are acting in their interests and to spot potential conflicts, excessive fees or undisclosed deals that could harm retirement savings.
What recent scandals have intensified calls for better super fund transparency?
The piece cites several scandals: APRA is investigating the $6 billion MTAA Super fund, there is a payroll tax probe into the MTAA motoring trade organisation, and legal action alleged Bernie Riordan earned about $1.8 million in fees from serving on multiple super-related boards (claims that have been rejected). These events have increased pressure for reform.
How are trustees chosen and can members remove them if they're unhappy?
The article notes that trustees are usually appointed to industry fund boards and in most cases cannot be sacked, no matter how incompetent. That means members often have little direct control over who sits on the trustee board.
Do members have a say if their super fund merges with another fund?
No — the article says a super fund can merge with another without needing permission from members. That means members may find their savings moved into a larger or potentially inferior fund without direct consent.
What is MySuper and why does consolidation of industry funds matter for everyday investors?
The article links the introduction of MySuper to an accelerating consolidation of industry funds. Over the past decade industry funds fell from 165 to 65. Consolidation concentrates retirement savings with fewer managers and trustees, which can increase risks for members if governance, transparency or performance are poor.
Which regulators are involved in policing super fund governance and what have they been doing?
The article highlights that APRA (the prudential regulator) and ASIC (the corporate regulator) have both stepped up enforcement and scrutiny around governance in the super sector. APRA's investigating MTAA Super and both regulators have been "flexing their muscles," increasing pressure on government to lift governance and transparency requirements.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
