Skip to main content

Cbus rectification plan canvasses veto of board nominees

Mike Taylor12 February 2025
Pushing rejection ball uphill

ANALYSIS

Industry superannuation fund Cbus has entered into its Court Enforceable Undertaking (CEU) with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) knowing that it has 16 months to get its house in order or face unpalatable consequences.

It also commits Cbus to justifying past expenditures under its so-call partnerships arrangements with trade unions in the knowledge that APRA will, itself, be closely examining those expenditures and whether they were justified in the context of member best interests.

In the context of the fund’s employer/union equal representation board model, the document also raises the prospect of the board being empowered to reject board nominations where it believes they would not be in the best interests of members.

The examination of past expenditures will undoubtedly draw attention to the claims of Cbus chair and Australian Labor Party president, Wayne Swan, that the partnership agreements delivered value to members far outweighing the value of advertising delivered by retail funds.

To understand the full implications of the CEU readers must access the highly detailed “Rectification Plan” developed by Cbus in response to the recommendations which flowed from the Deloitte Report

That “Rectification Plan” represents one of the foundations of the CEU and not only commits Cbus to implementing serious changes to its governance approach and expenditure management but also commits the fund to reviewing its past expenditures.

The most disturbing element of APRA’s announcement of the new enforceable undertaking is that it the regulator said it would “also be exploring possible breaches of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 by Cbus through an investigation with a focus on expenditure management practices”.

Hardly surprising, then, that the Rectification Plan includes a “key action” to “Develop and document a plan for the Trustee to review and reassess the past Expenditure Decisions that were the subject of the Independent Review, applying the uplifted frameworks, policies, processes and procedures”.

The key action includes notes that, “the plan is to include the steps to be taken if a decision on review is different from the past Expenditure Decision”.

Importantly, the time-frames outlined in the “Rectification Plan’ envisage the process running through to the end of September, 2026, giving rise to the possibility of completion of the process being undertaken with a new Government sitting on the Treasury benches in Canberra.

APRA deputy chair, Margaret Cole noted that the court-enforceable undertaking is separate to the additional license conditions imposed on Cbus.

The response from Cbus to the APRA announcement was notable for the fact that it was attributable to the fund’s chief executive, Kristian Fok rather than Cbus chair, Wayne Swan.

Fok said the Cbus board “is united in its ongoing commitment to uplift practices to ensure members receive the best possible services.

“We take our responsibilities to our members very seriously and are committed to ensuring that we operate to the highest standards of governance and compliance to provide the best retirement outcomes for our members.”

“While we have made progress in some areas there is more work to be done, and it must be done at pace,” he said.

Mike Taylor

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor/Publisher, Financial Newswire

Subscribe to comments
Be notified of
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Has Shoes
3 hours ago

Who got fired? Fined? Imprisoned?

One foot out the door
3 hours ago
Reply to  Has Shoes

Or had their lively hood destroyed.

Shoes are on
2 minutes ago
Reply to  Has Shoes

Who got promoted anyway?

One foot out the door
3 hours ago

As I said to a colleague this morning if this had been AMP or another INSTO five or ten years ago it would front page everywhere and, on the ABC,

IFA Man
2 hours ago

If I am a member of any fund, and I am not a union member, and I do not wish to BE a union member, how can a super fund spending money on ‘partnerships’ with unions be in MY interests?

If I am a ‘conservative’ voter, how can incurring fund expenses supporting the ALP be in MY interests?

When the super fund spends money on office parties and picnics and boondoggles (to which I am not a participant, nor even invited) how can the costs of those pleasure trips be for MY retirement benefits, aka the sole purpose?

If a trustee of an SMSF decided to hold a Christmas party and get the SMSF to pay for that party, or make a political donation, or send the trustees on an international ‘fact finding mission’ (flying first class of course), or any of the other things these funds get up to, just what would the regulators have to say? Would (could?) it pass Audit? Would it result in trustee penalties?

No, we all know the answers.

It is time the funds and trustees of industry funds were held to the IDENTICAL standards.

Ex-Super boss
1 hour ago

We all know how this ends... First of all, It takes a front page story in the SMH for the Super team in APRA to get out of bed. APRA when it comes to prudential regulation of the Super industry…well they’re a slap with a wet fish. Prosecutions by APRA in the last 35 years amounted to ONE and now this must be TWO? Barely prosecuting a single superfund or individual. Second thing… this really just gives CBUS, 9 months to offer those APRA staff attractive salaries and careers with free parking with CBus and or sponsor the APRA Christmas party or similar..Some CBUS Senior staffer will be a sacrificial lamb for the press release only to resurface at AustralianSuper or similar. In 2 years time a retiring APRA staffer will appear on the CBus board or more typically on a similar board run by a mate with Cbus. We all know how this game is played.

Incompetence, a lack of care and duplication in the public service, coupled with low weak moral standards, and you’ve just described the Super Industry for the last 30 years. The key difference is the Banks are no longer the distraction.