The super fund millions spent on memberships and marketing
Industry superannuation fund HESTA has cited client legal privilege in declining to reveal to a Senate Committee the legal advice it has received with respect to whether nearly $4 million in expenditures on association and industry organisation memberships meet the Best Financial Interests Duty (BFID).
Faced with questions on notice from the Senate Economics References Committee, HESTA detailed more than $3.9 million in expenditures in 2024, with more than $3.1 million of that amount paid to industry funds groups the Super Members Council (SMC) and Industry Super Australia.
In questions on notice to HESTA, NSW Liberal Senator, Andrew Bragg, asked: “What legal advice, if any, have you received that justifies your position within these organisations under the BFID Standards?”
However, HESTA replied that: “Legal advice provided to HESTA is subject to client legal privilege. Depending on the nature of advice received, the advice may also be subject to confidentiality restrictions imposed by third parties.”
It added that “legal advice provided to HESTA is subject to client legal privilege and HESTA should not be expected to waive that privilege.”
HESTA had expanded its response to Bragg’s questions after the Senate wrote to the fund in early February complaining that the questions which had been posed to the fund had not been adequately addressed≥
“Responses variously redirect to a website or a previous non-substantive answer, rather than the answer being contained within the response itself. The committee asks that you address the questions put which have been listed in the attachment to this letter,” Bragg wrote.
“Additionally, you declined to answer some questions, citing the information is subject to ‘client legal privilege’. Additionally, you have asked for the answers to all questions on notice to be taken confidentially without further explanation as to the harm that may come from release of that information. Could you please provide further information to support your claims for confidentiality, in order to inform the committee’s considerations.
“The committee looks forward to your response to the questions on notice by COB Wednesday, 19 February 2025.”
Bragg, as chair of the Senate committee, directed similar questions to Cbus including asking the fund’s chair, Federal ALP president, Wayne Swan, how much the fund spt annually on advertising.
The fund answered by directing Bragg to its web site disclosures which, amongst other things, revealed $2.2 million spent with Google Australia, $3.3 million spent with Industry Super Australia, $8.1 million with Initiative Media, $4.8 million with Louder Digital and $1.2 million with The Shannon Company.
How dare anyone question Industry Super, Union and Bikie bosses about their spending and profiteering from members Super funds.
Been going on for decades It must be ok to keep doing it !!!! What a F*+>%£^g rough
What an absolute joke. Client legal privilege?
What sort of governance system are we running here people?
Farcical.
The $20,000,000 plus they spend of their clients money isn’t in their client’s best interest it’s in their own self interest. If they increase membership they can then ask for higher salary and wages.
Lavish Advertising has. Thing to do with their clients best interest, this is why they avoid answering these questions because they know they are in the wrong.
Guess who directly benefits from all their lavish sponsorship deals and advertising? The board of course, not their members.
They also are lying when they cite client confidentiality. They have absolutely no right as board members and directors to hide any of this financial information. The members and the public have a right to full disclosure, especially when their Industry fund mates have been found to be dealing corruptly with bikies and organised criminals.
Thieves and Crooks