Each year, the captains of the finance industry are summoned to cardboard billionaire Anthony Pratt’s Circular Quay apartment to be lectured to about why superannuation funds should engage in more direct lending to business.
The annual gabfest is hosted by the Australian Financial Review, sponsored by Pratt’s company Visy and led intellectually by former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, who is in many ways the architect of the super system (and, as we found out last year via an expose in the Sydney Morning Herald, is also on Pratt’s payroll as a political consultant).
As the super system has increased in size and power, the so-called Superannuation Lending Roundtable has inched its way further up to the front of the paper. And at this year’s event, held last week, they brought in a rockstar international speaker in Michael Milken, famed as the once-disreputable creator of junk bonds turned philanthropist and think-tank patron.
But even though the topic of super has increased in prominence in the national business paper, and there are no shortage of commentators about it, the actual leaders of super funds were clearly not considered important enough to give their views on the topic at hand.
While a handful of industry leaders were present, including Aware Super’s Deanne Stewart, Hostplus’ Sam Sicilia, Hesta’s Jeff Brunton and Colonial First State’s Kelly Power, none were quoted in any of the five articles about the event.
Conexus, for obvious reasons, is not invited to this annual forum, but my sources inform me that they weren’t quoted because they weren’t given an opportunity to say anything, with just some brief remarks from industry super elder statesmen Don Russell and Cath Bowtell.
The fact that these extremely busy senior executives were invited to this charade and then not given any airtime – while they listened to lengthy diatribes from Pratt, Keating, Milken and the big four bank bosses – is testament to the low esteem in which the event’s host, the AFR, holds the compulsory superannuation system.
Keating himself has publicly called out the AFR’s coverage of superannuation as being biased, laying blame at the feet of its editor-in-chief Michael Stutchbury, a longtime critic and antagonist of trade unions.
From my perspective, as a peer in the publishing industry, Stutchbury deserves credit for keeping his publication alive, perhaps even allowing it to thrive, in a difficult trading environment.
But it is certainly true that under his tenure, coverage of super has been riddled with ideological fervour. Editorial after editorial has questioned the system’s foundational principles while omitting the public interest benefits. The publication has seemingly become obsessed with the links between Labor, unions and industry funds. These matters, as we have seen with the CFMEU-Cbus affair, warrant attention and media scrutiny.
But they do not negate the overwhelmingly positive impact that compulsory super has had on the nation and the finances and dignity of millions of regular workers.
Stutchbury has recently announced his retirement from the top job after 13 years, although he will remain on the paper in a writing role. That follows the swift departure of Nine chair and former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello after a physical altercation with a reporter.
Supporters of super will be hoping that both of these developments will spell a new era of objective and fair treatment of the sector, although it remains to be seen what preconceived notions new editor-in-chief James Chessell will bring.
In the Murdoch press, it is (predictably) even worse. Attacks on the compulsory super system are in the News Corp papers not just confined to the editorial or opinion pages, but – worryingly – also form part of personal finance coverage.
“Many younger Australians would be better off sidelining super and making sure they own their own home,” The Australian’s wealth editor James Kirby concluded in an article, republished in the tabloid papers, in May.
The article backed the Coalition’s ‘super for housing’ policy, which – all of the experts agree – would only put more pressure on house prices while also ripping consumers off from their own best possible retirement.
It is important that the media accurately report on this policy ahead of the next election, so that voters do not sleepwalk into supporting something that seems attractive on face value but is not in their long-term financial interests.
That is not to say that the press should pull punches. At Conexus we have been very willing to probe and criticise the super industry at times, including my last editorial in which I argued the sector is suffering from a sense of arrogance and hubris.
Our research conducted in partnership with CoreData has found many deficiencies in how many of the big super funds, including and sometimes especially industry funds, are engaging with their members and preparing them for retirement.
But our criticisms do not come from an ideological motivation to weaken the system. Far from it, our intention is to help improve a system that is so important to the social fabric of Australia.
Super’s political enemies in the mainstream media and Coalition should be more willing to admit their biases. Or at the very least give industry leaders a proper right of reply.
Colin Tate AM is founder and managing director of Conexus Financial, publisher of Investment Magazine and Professional Planner.
