APRA’s $70,000 Christmas bash – in whose interest?
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has still not answered questioning from a Labor Senator on whether its supervisory levies extracted from superannuation funds is in the best interests of members of those funds if it is spent on an APRA Christmas party.
NSW Labor Senator and former trade union official, Tony Sheldon, posed the question during Senate Estimates late last year in the context of APRA having funded a $70,000 Christmas Party.
Sheldon, as a member of the Senate Economics References Committee, posed his question in the following manner:
“As the APRA Supervisory Levy is paid for by regulated entities and therefore, by superannuation fund members, can APRA guarantee its expenditure of members’ money through the Supervisory Levy is in members’ best financial interests?”
“If so, what processes does APRA have in place for determining that its expenditure of members’ money meets members’ best financial interests?”
“APRA threw itself a $70,000 Christmas Party at the Sheraton Grand Ballroom in 2023, of which $50,649 was paid for directly by APRA and therefore, paid in large part by superannuation fund members’ account balances,” Sheldon’s question on notice said.
“How did APRA satisfy itself that the expenditure of $50,649 was consistent with the members’ best financial interest duty given that this money was used for cocktails and canapes for APRA staff? What process did APRA undertake to determine that a $70,000 Christmas party was not excessive corporate entertainment?”
“As superannuation funds have a requirement to ensure that payment to their service providers is in their members’ best financial interests, how does APRA suggest that funds are to satisfy this requirement when the Supervisory Levy paid to APRA contributes to excessive corporate entertainment such as the $70,000 2023 APRA Christmas party?”
“What are the expected costs of APRA’s 2024 Christmas party and how will these be funded?”
The Parliament House web site lists Sheldon’s question as being unanswered with APRA’s response being “overdue”.
Just Embarrassing for all involved
Really?? Is this the best Tony Sheldon can come up with?? I’d rather he die on a much more worthwhile hill than this one. $70K for a staff xmas function is nothing. Tony Sheldon needs to start worrying about the bigger issues.
If APRA is going to chase headlines for similar activity from super funds then it is clear they should not be doing the same. It doesn’t matter the amount paid it’s the principle, and the fact that the regulator says one thing and does another. But this is typical of APRA and ASIC, the rules apply to everyone but them (and their union fund buddies!).
Didn’t CBUS spend $400k on a party….?
The nub of this seems to be (in my opinion) that if it is ok for APRA to spend money on an Xmas show (using member funds) then it too should be ok for super fund trustees to do the same (using member funds).
My strong view is that not $0.01 of member funds should be spent on Xmas parties or 40 year anniversary celebrations by either of these entity types. How is this in a members interest?
I wonder what would happen if a retail super fund, SMSF, or bank used member funds to throw a private party?
Australia…. lol.
that was my point, neither should be spending member’s funds to do anything else other than improve the retirement of their members. Was interesting to see that all of a sudden a Labor Senator had an issue with how a body was using its member’s funds!
Agree. It’s a total joke. We’ll add it to the list of all the other total jokes….
So when APRA finally starts shining a very faint light on union super funds, the unions try to turn the spotlight on APRA’s questionable behaviour.
APRA may have have done the wrong thing in relation to the Xmas party, but APRA’s far greater crime is their many years of dereliction of duty in ignoring misuse of members’ money by union super funds.
Let’s hope the Xmas party incident leads to a shake up of management and culture at APRA, so they can finally do their job properly in relation to union super funds.