Back to NTEU National Office

NTEU Advice on UniSuper Issues

Posted 15 December 2011 by Grahame McCulloch (NTEU National Office)

Please find below NTEU's advice on the issues surrounding UniSuper that have been covered in the media this week.

Other
(193 KB) - PDF

NTEU Advice on UniSuper Issues

Comments

  1. trippy said on 9:14 Saturday 8 Jun, 2013

    [ 0 ] WHERE are the superannuation regulators when investors really need them, as the UniSuper defined benefit fund difficulties continue? Recoveries in world equity markets have improved the fund's overall situation and reduced the deficit if the fund were liquidated today.
    This situation has allowed trustees to delay a decision on whether benefits need to be reduced on an equitable basis under Clause 34 of the Trust Deed. But it does not remove the uncertainty about whether all members will receive all the benefits promised to them when they leave.

    Like Dislike
  2. Paul said on 17:15 Saturday 23 Mar, 2013

    [ 0 ] Every university must be considered separately whether the unions like it or not. Why? Because some institutions actively prevented members from accessing their legal entitlement to superannuation choice. This action was not at arms length to the 2006 amendments, and in my view will be held to have created an implicit liability to make good the contributions.

    Like Dislike
  3. jamez said on 10:49 Tuesday 22 May, 2012

    [ 0 ] My thoughts go to the voting process. How can you remove a clause without negotiating for a better alternative? Everything seems to be conviently orchestrated towards the employers with regards this event. Nothing was to the advantage of the members. I could understand if the vote was a one of lump some payment from all universities into the dbf in return for the removal of there onus. But nothing. We can ponder all we like the proof will be when we slide into 2013. I am practising eating bake beans as a main meal. I can guarantee that I am getting the same return from my investment.

    Like Dislike
  4. Bill Geddes said on 12:10 Monday 21 May, 2012

    [ 0 ] What can I say Jamez, I agree with you!
    I believe that when I joined the scheme, the necessary guarantees were in place to ensure that the fund would be underwritten by employers.
    It seems that employer organizations had been maneuvering to weaken those guarantees for several years prior to 2006 so that, when they moved to change the relevant clause, they could claim that their guarantee of the fund was unworkable.
    NTEU seems to have dropped the ball on all this. They seem not to have realized what was happening. They should have seen this maneuvering for what it was: a way to cut the fund adrift.
    However, good as hindsight might be, I have no idea what (if anything) can now be done to rectify things. I guess we can only hope that NTEU proves more effective in safeguarding our entitlements into the future than it has proved itself to be in the past.

    Like Dislike
  5. jamez said on 22:37 Saturday 19 May, 2012

    [ +2 ] Bill Geddes, it is obvious that the Superannuation fund did not clearly articulate the information in a manner the rank and file understood. We are talking about well educated individuals. I can not believe for one moment that apathy was the cause of this situation. Unfortunately, apathy is now what is driving this bus now. We now rely on the fund and the union and possibly the government to help. That's if there is anyone that is negotiating on our behalf. Have we forgot Pyramid. I don't mean to be alarmist but I am too old to head back into the work force . Superannuation was a conduit to a retirement of choice and dignity.

    Like Dislike
  6. jamez said on 22:37 Saturday 19 May, 2012

    [ -1 ] Bill Geddes, it is obvious that the Superannuation fund did not clearly articulate the information in a manner the rank and file understood. We are talking about well educated individuals. I can not believe for one moment that apathy was the cause of this situation. Unfortunately, apathy is now what is driving this bus now. We now rely on the fund and the union and possibly the government to help. That's if there is anyone that is negotiating on our behalf. Have we forgot Pyramid. I don't mean to be alarmist but I am too old to head back into the work force . Superannuation was a conduit to a retirement of choice and dignity.

    Like Dislike
  7. Bill Geddes said on 16:12 Saturday 19 May, 2012

    [ -1 ] Jamez, unfortunately, having now obtained a copy of the Superannuation Scheme for Australian Universities Trust Deed (1986), Clause 48(1) amendment of that Deed states that:
    'The Trustee may with the consent of the Consultative Committee at any time and from time to time by Deed alter, add to or repeal all or any of the provisions contained in this Deed… '
    Since the changes introduced in 2006 required the consent of the Consultative Committee, the question to be asked is whether there is a case for arguing a lack of due diligence or negligence on the part of employee and retiree representatives on that committee in agreeing to the removal of the relevant protective clause(s). (This, however, will not change the 2006 outcome!)
    It was good to see Grahame McCulloch assure us, on Wednesday 28 Dec. last year, that ’Retired university staff can rely upon NTEU to represent their interests in future negotiations with the Unisuper Board and the two organisations representing the universities as employers’. The questions which need to be answered, however, are:
    Why wasn’t that representation effective in 2006?
    And, what has been done to ensure that future representation will be more effective?

    Like Dislike
  8. jamez said on 19:18 Wednesday 16 May, 2012

    [ 0 ] After serious irregularities with trio Superannuation fund. Its is apparent that regulators APRA are unable to keep an appropriate finger on the pulse. There also seems a lack of accountability. Again individuals are left to feel the pain of inappropriate practises. This is why proactive action is required to insure that Unisuper appropriately meet members obligations. This can only be achieved by investigating how binding the 2005 decision to remove employers obligation to fund the fund when in financial trouble. This is essential to be done now not later when we are up to our necks in issues.

    Like Dislike
  9. jamez said on 19:18 Wednesday 16 May, 2012

    [ 0 ] After serious irregularities with trio Superannuation fund. Its is apparent that regulators APRA are unable to keep an appropriate finger on the pulse. There also seems a lack of accountability. Again individuals are left to feel the pain of inappropriate practises. This is why proactive action is required to insure that Unisuper appropriately meet members obligations. This can only be achieved by investigating how binding the 2005 decision to remove employers obligation to fund the fund when in financial trouble. This is essential to be done now not later when we are up to our necks in issues.

    Like Dislike
  10. jamez said on 10:01 Friday 27 Apr, 2012

    [ 0 ] sorry misquoted the date I ment 2005 not 1995. I agree also with Bill Geddes. What is required before the we find ourselves in trouble is a legal investigation in the validity of what took place in 2005. How the clause was removed that protected existing members. Before next year.

    Like Dislike

Post a comment

Please be considerate and respectful in your comments.