UNION-CONTROLLED industry super funds spent $31 million of members’ money on advertising over the past year, including a $7 million political campaign against changes to shake up competition.

The media blitz by the industry super funds is almost double the spending of all the retail superannuation funds, according to Nielsen data provided to corporate clients.

Legislation to dilute the influence of board-appointed union officials by mandating a third of all directors be independent is stalled in the Senate.

Legislation to give individuals a choice of super fund rather than be forced into an industry fund will be introduced in the new year.

Analysis of the media spend of all superannuation funds, obtained by The Saturday Telegraph, has revealed the industry funds spent $24 million on media for the year up until June, 2015. The previous year it was closer to $30 million.

The industry funds’ lobbyists, however, spent an additional $7 million on a political advertising campaign.

The industry funds claim their ad budget is a fraction of the big four banks, which own the largest retail super funds and spend a combined $134 million a year in advertising.

The superannuation industry also generates an estimated $30 billion in fees, the bulk of which goes to commercial wealth management and the four big banks.

Industry sources claimed union-controlled funds were engaging in “blatant political advertising” against reforms which would remove mandatory default funds for industry sectors and allow individuals to choose their own funds.

They also claimed industry funds didn’t need to advertise because they were automatically given members because they were default funds.

Chief executive of Industry Super Australia David Whiteley defended the advertising budget, claiming they were up against the might of the four big banks, which lobbied government for their own agenda.

“A more appropriate comparator was how much the banks spend,” Mr Whiteley said.

“The bundle all their advertising across a range of financial services

That industry funds are dwarfed by what the banks are spending.

“The purpose of the ads is to inform the members of the benefits of industry super which are run only to benefit members.

“We have also been informing members that the banks are fighting an aggressive campaign to cross sell their super products.”

Yesterday it was revealed that unions have directly received $5.4 million in payments from industry super largely in fees to have union officials sit on governance boards.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/union-super-funds-spend-big-on-advertising-and-political-campaign/story-fni0cx4q-1227668563804

Quote:

“A more appropriate comparator was how much the banks spend,” Mr Whiteley said.

Wrong. Banks don't use members' funds to pay for advertising. They use fees and charges paid by customers. They're free to spend whatever they like on advertising, so long as shareholders are fine with that. No such oversight exists in these union-controlled super funds.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:08am:

Quote: “A more appropriate comparator was how much the banks spend,” Mr Whiteley said. Wrong. Banks don't use members' funds to pay for advertising. They use fees and charges paid by customers. They're free to spend whatever they like on advertising, so long as shareholders are fine with that. No such oversight exists in these union-controlled super funds.

You mean the banks don't expect their super funds to fund the super fund's advertising... and it's all just some sort of consolidated revenue trick?  I sincerely doubt that.

As an aside, what will the banks do for funds when most of their fees are banned and they are forced to rely on their real earnings for a change?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:08am: Quote: “A more appropriate comparator was how much the banks spend,” Mr Whiteley said. Wrong. Banks don't use members' funds to pay for advertising. They use fees and charges paid by customers. They're free to spend whatever they like on advertising, so long as shareholders are fine with that. No such oversight exists in these union-controlled super funds. You mean the banks don't expect their super funds to fund the super fund's advertising... and it's all just some sort of consolidated revenue trick?  I sincerely doubt that. As an aside, what will the banks do for funds when most of their fees are banned and they are forced to rely on their real earnings for a change?

The Australian compulsory super is set up for the benefit of the super industry and the rich self funded retirees, and most Union leaders will end up as self funded retirees, because they are sitting on boards of their members super, collecting huge fees.
I was a member of a Union for 40 years, but I don't think that Unions work for the good of their members.

hawil wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:08am: Quote: “A more appropriate comparator was how much the banks spend,” Mr Whiteley said. Wrong. Banks don't use members' funds to pay for advertising. They use fees and charges paid by customers. They're free to spend whatever they like on advertising, so long as shareholders are fine with that. No such oversight exists in these union-controlled super funds. You mean the banks don't expect their super funds to fund the super fund's advertising... and it's all just some sort of consolidated revenue trick?  I sincerely doubt that. As an aside, what will the banks do for funds when most of their fees are banned and they are forced to rely on their real earnings for a change? The Australian compulsory super is set up for the benefit of the super industry and the rich self funded retirees, and most Union leaders will end up as self funded retirees, because they are sitting on boards of their members super, collecting huge fees. I was a member of a Union for 40 years, but I don't think that Unions work for the good of their members.

I agree with you and you need only look at the pork barrels Union officials (in a number of cases) hand out to themselves along the same lines as politicians of all stamps hand out pork barrels to themselves and each other.

I've long stated that I hold no brief for any side here - though I support the right of the ordinary person to belong to a genuine Union that does what it is supposed to do, as an issue of balancing the overweaning power of the bosses.  Since 'industrial relations' are largely unregulated and hardly ever subject to legal sanction for abuse, it is simply not a viable proposition to leave workers at the absolute mercy of an unscrupulous and often abysmally stupid boss class.

Our society has descended into one of utter selfishness and a near lack of any concept of service to others and to the community.... and our Government politicians, the  Opposition shadow Government and their 'second shadow government' in the Unions and Boss Groups are those mostly to blame, for seeking little more than the 'entitlement' of an excellent income and easy life in return for their 'service' to the many (LMAO).

There, My Lord.. THERE is your Sense  and Age Of Entitlement..... just another era of robber barons.. Pirates Of The Current Eon..... and most of us are too blind to see it and somehow think either that it will all work out for us or that if we stick our heads in the sand long enough they won't stick a bayonet in our arse....