The Super Shake-Up Solution
Regular followers of these blogs will recall that we ended last week on a contemplative note, pondering the dilemma facing not-for-profit super funds that might well have to change the make-up of their boards if proposed Federal Government legislation to improve governance in the sector gets through the Parliament.
To recap, the dilemma was that while these funds have tended to perform better than their corporate cousins, arguably because of their ‘we’re here for our members’ rather than ‘we’re here to make money for our shareholders’ philosophy, they’ve also historically had weaknesses.
So how do we retain those vital values while ensuring the boards have the requisite skills and diversity?
The Super Shake-up Dilemma
The Federal Government’s recently introduced Bill aimed at changing the governance landscape at non-profit superannuation funds, key among them that one-third of the directors are independents, as is the chairman, is to me a bit like the curate’s egg.
It’s good in parts, which probably explains the raft of opinions on the subject.
Banks like the model, unions don’t. But then powerful people like former Australian Workers Union boss and Australian Super director turned KPMG consultant Paul Howes likes it too, as does retiring SunSuper chief investment officer David Hartley.