“The Government could say: everyone will pay the superannuation guarantee through the tax office or Medicare, and the money will go to the Future Fund to invest.” She does not smile as she paints this wipeout scenario, and warns: “If we do not become a transparent and accountable industry that delivers retirement outcomes, the Government will look for alternatives.” She also shatters the industry’s perception that it is being consulted about reforms following the Henry, Ripoll and Cooper reviews. The Government has chosen which recommendations it supports, and is consulting the industry only on how these should be implemented. “This is where people [in the industry] have it wrong. They think the consultation process is about whether it’s good policy or not. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about implementation.” “If you look at the Treasury papers that go to the working group, there was never a question ‘is this good policy or not?’ It’s ‘this is the Government’s policy, these are the issues around implementing this policy, what do you think?’
Vamos is passionate about the industry, but is pessimistic about its ability to pull together and selfregulate. It now has stewardship over $1.3 trillion in assets, a sum projected to grow to $5 trillion by 2035. Super is a serious business, and the Government wants confidence that the industry, as a whole, will act in the best interests of members when it proposes how the reforms should be implemented. “When you are responsible for that much money, you must have a structure and legislation,” she says. “It’s not about the industry being bad: it’s about getting the right regulatory structure going forward.” To achieve this, now and in the future, industry associations must set egos aside and pool resources on some matters, she says. “We need to get better at joining on initiatives in which we can share our resources. I’m the first one to say that egos get in the way, and finding time to get together is difficult. “There will always be differences, but let’s join our resources. There is an appetite to do this, but it’s difficult: people are frightfully busy and we are suspicious of each other.
“The relationships are not at a stage, at the moment, where there’ll be a frank discussion between all the bodies. Individually, this happens, but not at an association level. It’s time to do this now.” She rejects claims that a turf war being waged by industry associations has prevented such cooperation. “It’s not a turf war. We charge fees, and funds pay a lot of fees, so we all have the KPI [keyperformance indicator] of keeping the members happy. Part of that is being visible, driving outcomes. “It’s ego.” To gauge the associations’ true willingness to collaborate, Vamos advocates that some kind of performance review is made to assess “how we as an industry come together”. But she adds, quickly, that some members would be appalled if the bodies came together on many issues, even though achieving selfregulation as an industry should be paramount. “Yes, there are philosophical differences in approaches to super, and they can still exist, but there are areas where we can come together.” Such as the operational structure of the industry, which is in a general state of disarray.
