With compulsory employer superannuation contributions set at 9 per cent, the nest eggs of employees are likely to grow into significant sums over the years, so it seems only right that workers should have more say in where it is invested.

But in the six years since the idea first came to light in the 1997 federal budget, super choice has become almost legendary for its similarity to the Loch Ness monster - every so often it rises to the surface only to disappear again for months on end.

As a result many employers still direct compulsory super contributions for their staff into an industry award fund or corporate super fund.

Employees have little chance of escape if the fund's performance or service standards slip, says the Financial Planning Association's national policy and government relations manager, Con Hristodoulidis.

Why, then, has something that sounds like a positive step for super fund members proved so difficult to implement? The short answer is politics. Both Labor and the Democrats have resisted the introduction of super choice.

"The fundamental sticking point is that the Labor Party and the Democrats have not been persuaded that super choice would be in the interests of employees," says the Democrats spokesman on super, John Cherry.

"The vast bulk of people are in industry and corporate super funds and they have much lower fees and, as a general rule, much higher investment performance than commercial master trusts."

Both parties also had reservations about the government's model for super choice.

"We didn't think the model the government had put up was providing full choice,"

Senator Cherry says.

Most of their reservations were ironed out the last time the proposal was put before Parliament, but one issue remained unresolved for the Democrats. The legislation was defeated in the Senate last August when the Government "baulked" at the prospect of allowing people to leave their super to a same-sex partner when they died, says Senator Cherry.

Nine months later, the government decided it was time to have another crack at super choice.

ING Financial Planning super manager Graeme Colley says this time the government has included further changes to its proposals, which it wants to take effect from July 1, 2004.

"The new proposals give virtually unlimited choice for an eligible employee to select the fund into which their super contributions will be paid by their employer," he says.

In previous proposals, employers were required to offer a choice of only four funds.

If an employee did not choose a fund, the employer would be allowed to direct the contributions into a default fund. For employees who are already members of a fund on July 1, 2004, the default fund would be the one into which contributions were last made. For those who join after that date the default fund will be the award fund or, if there is no award fund, one chosen by the employer.

But fund members should not hold their breath waiting for the proposals to become law.

The Opposition has shown that it is prepared to entertain the idea of super choice in an options paper released on August 2, but it has also put a fresh set of requirements on the table.

The opposition spokesman for retirement incomes and savings, Nick Sherry, says Labor wants to see any introduction of super choice accompanied by the "strongest protections" for consumers.

"Labor's concern has always been that not a lot of people understand how the super system works and we have to put in place strong protections to ensure that they are not affected by excessive fees and charges," Senator Sherry says.

The opposition's proposed protections include banning entry and exit fees, which act as a barrier to choice, placing a 1.2 per cent cap on fees charged on super guarantee products and improved disclosure of fees and charges.

"The current Financial Services Reform Act regulations in our view don't provide meaningful disclosure of fees and charges," Senator Sherry says.

He says Labor wants to see consumers given a total management fee that expresses the impact of fees in a single figure in both percentage and dollar terms.

The Democrats also want to resolve issues on disclosure and death benefits before passing the legislation.

The government is expressing reservations about the gap between its proposals and Labor's options paper. So it is likely to be some time still before super choice emerges from the mire of the political process.

  Printer friendly version        Email to a friend