WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Superannuation Legislation Amendment
Bill (No. 3) 1999
Date Introduced: 31 March 1999
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: 1 July 1999, unless otherwise mentioned in the
Main Provisions section.
To replace
'excluded funds', which have less than 5 members, with a new
category of self managed funds which will have tighter membership
rules and their regulation administered by the Australian Taxation
Office
The rapid growth of superannuation over the past
two decades has a number of causes, such as: changes to Federal
industrial awards to provide for employer contributions; the
widening of occupational superannuation through the introduction of
the superannuation guarantee scheme; and a growing awareness, both
within the public and government, that a desired lifestyle in
retirement will generally not be available solely on an aged
pension and that taxpayers will find it increasingly difficult to
finance the aged pension, particularly through the years when the
'baby boomer' generation reaches retirement age. The attractiveness
of superannuation as a savings vehicle for retirement is
principally the concessional taxation treatment of complying
superannuation funds, which are subject to a 15% tax rate on member
contributions and earnings. While superannuation coverage is very
high for employees (91%) and all workers (81%), largely due to the
compulsory superannuation guarantee scheme, coverage is
substantially less for employers (36%).(1) This may be due to
employers having other, preferred savings vehicles, such as
investment in a business.
Superannuation funds may be classified as
falling within a number of categories depending largely on to whom
they are offered, who is eligible to be a member of the fund and
the number of members of the fund. The differing types of funds may
be subject to differing regulatory requirements. The following
table gives a list of the number of funds, membership and assets of
various categories of funds for December 1998:
Fund Type |
Funds(1) |
Members
(000's) |
Assets
($ billion) |
Corporate |
4 259 |
1 456 |
69 |
Industry |
108 |
5 847 |
26 |
Public Sector |
62 |
2 878 |
84 |
Retail |
363 |
8 957 |
102 |
Excluded |
169 825 |
348 |
47 |
Annuities, life office reserves, etc. |
na |
na |
49 |
Total |
174 617 |
19 486 |
377 |
(1) Fund numbers are preliminary only for June
1998
Source: APRA, Superannuation Trends - December 1998
This Bill deals with excluded funds that have
the principal characteristic of being restricted to fewer than 5
members, which explains the relative small number of total members
compared to the large number of funds shown above.
The funds are known as excluded funds as they do
not have to comply with all of the regulatory requirements imposed
by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
(SIS) and regulations to receive their complying status and hence
concessional taxation. Examples of differences between excluded and
other regulated funds are that the trustee/s of an excluded fund do
not need APRA's approval, the acquisition of property from members
is more relaxed for excluded funds, information and reporting
requirements are less for excluded funds and other investment rules
are less restricted than for other funds. The lower prudential
requirements reflect the risk borne with excluded funds, which is
based on the restricted number of members having a greater
opportunity to possess knowledge of the funds operations. Such
funds are also known as D.I.Y. super funds because, as the term
implies, the members of the fund can take an active role in the
decision making of the fund, although the final decision may rest
with the trustee/s.
The appropriateness of lower prudential
standards for excluded funds can be questioned when the
relationship between the trustee and members of the fund become
such that there is no ability for the member to affect the trustee
so that the member is in much the same situation (except relating
to regulatory controls) as a member of a larger fund.
Superannuation in general, and the position of
excluded funds, was examined by the Financial System Inquiry which
reported in March 1997 (Wallis Report). The Report considered
excluded funds to 'provide a worthwhile and competitive option' but
as self-managed funds should not be subject to prudential
regulation. It recommended that supervision of excluded funds be
transferred to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as the body
which has the responsibility of determining if the funds is a
complying fund or not.(2) The Wallis Report also commented:
At present, some excluded funds have
beneficiaries who are at arm's length from the trustees. This is
unsatisfactory to the extent that there is little protection of the
interests of these third-party beneficiaries and because there is
little practical scope for effective prudential regulation of such
funds. The Inquiry considers that funds which have third-party
beneficiaries should not be regarded as excluded funds. On balance
the Committee would prefer to discourage this particular
configuration of superannuation structure.
The Committee believes that there is an
opportunity to improve the prudence and compliance of excluded
funds by requiring all beneficiaries of such funds to be
trustees.(3)
Changes to the regulation of excluded funds were
announced in the 1998-99 Budget. The main changes relate to:
-
- introducing a category of self managed funds which will replace
excluded funds, with the new name reflecting the investment
management of the fund
-
- a self managing fund will be one with fewer than 5 members (as
with excluded funds) where:
-
- all members are trustees and there are no other trustees of the
fund, and
-
- if there is more than one member of the fund, all fund members
are either [business] partners, directors or trustee of the
employer-sponsor or family relatives.
-
- transferring responsibility for the management of self managed
funds from APRA to the ATO.
In the event of an existing excluded fund not
falling within the new definition, the fund must either restructure
to meet the new member/trustee requirements or appoint an
independent trustee and be subject to regulation by APRA.(4)
While the later choice, with an independent
trustee and APRA supervision, can be achieved with relatively minor
changes, the effect on the operation of the fund may be quite
significant, particularly the need for investment 'approval' from
the trustee (the trustee will generally be making the investment
decisions). This may become particularly relevant where the members
of the fund wish to invest in a limited number of 'ethical
investments' unless the trust deed is amended to reduce investment
to a limited range of areas. The requirement for there to be a
certain relationship between all members of a self managed fund may
also create problems for existing excluded funds which have same
sex partners as members of the trust (see the comments section
below).
Changes to the investment rules that will effect
self managed funds were also announced in the 1998-99 Budget but
have yet to be introduced into Parliament. The proposed new rules
were released in an exposure draft of the Superannuation Laws
Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 and these proposals have been subject
to further change following consultation on the draft Bill.
Amendments to the SIS Act (Schedule
1 of the Bill)
Self managed superannuation funds (SMF) are
defined in proposed section 17A of SIS. A fund
with more than one member will be a SMF were:
-
- it has less than 5 members
-
- each trustee is a member of the fund or, if the trustee is a
company, each director of the company is a member
-
- each member of the fund is a trustee or, where the trustee is a
company, a director of the company
-
- each member of the fund is linked to all other members of the
fund, and
-
- no trustee receives remuneration for there services as
trustee.
Members of a fund will be taken to be linked
where there is a sufficiently close relationship between the people
involved. This will be where:
-
- the people are directors of the same company, trustees of the
same trust or partners in the same partnership and the company,
trust or partnership carries on business
-
- they are directors in different companies and the companies are
partners in a partnership that carries on business
-
- the people are directors of a company which operates a trust
that conducts business
-
- the people are relatives, or
-
- the people are linked through a third party who has a
sufficient relationship with those people.
For the first three cases listed above, if a
person had a sufficient link due to their position as a director,
trustee or partner before retiring, this will be a sufficient
relationship (ie. after a person with a sufficient relationship
retires they will remain eligible to be a member of the SMF and so
receive benefits from it).
'Relative' is defined in proposed section 17A to
include a spouse or former spouse as well as blood relatives.
Spouse is defined in SIS to be married people or people who are not
married but who live on a genuine domestic basis as the husband or
wife of the other person. This will exclude members of a same sex
relationship from falling within the definition of spouse, and
hence of relative for proposed section 17A.
Where the fund has only one member, it will be a
SMF if:
-
- where the trustee of the fund is a company, the person is the
sole director of the company or is one of two linked directors (for
when a director will be considered to be linked, see above),
or
-
- in other cases, two individuals are trustees and one of the
people is a member of the fund and the other is linked to the first
person.
Where the above conditions are satisfied, other
people may still be trustees in certain circumstances and the fund
will retain its SMF status. The circumstances when this will be
allowed are when a legal personal representative has replaced a
member due to the member's death or legal disability (in such
circumstances, there will be a limit on the period for which the
legal personal representative may act), and where an acting trustee
is appointed by APRA (or the appropriate administrator of the fund.
This will be achieved by later amendments in the Bill which changes
references to APRA to the Regulator. In practice, if the
administration of SMFs passes to the ATO, it will be this regulator
taking action). However, a person under a disability that prevents
them from being a trustee for other reasons will not be able to
take advantage of these provisions to act as a trustee.
A person is not to be a trustee of a fund with
less than 5 members, other than a SMF, unless the trustee is
approved by APRA and APRA may suspend a trustee of such a trust
unless they are approved (items 28 and 29). (The
power to suspend an unapproved trustee will commence from 1 April
2000 - subclause 2(2)).
A trustee of a SMF will not be required to lodge
a return with APRA (item 31), but instead will be
required to lodge a return with the ATO (item
32).
Section 42 of SIS deals with when a fund will be
treated as a complying fund. The section will be amended by
items 33 to 37 to remove SMFs
from the ambit of the section. A new section 42A, which deals with
when a SMF will be a complying fund, will be inserted into SIS by
item 38. If the SMF is a resident regulated fund
for the whole of the year or during the part of the year when it
was not a resident regulated fund it was a resident approved
deposit fund, the SMF must satisfy the general test contained in
proposed subsection 42A(5), which will be achieved if:
-
- the trustee did not breach SIS or its regulations during the
year, or
-
- there was such a breach but the regulator (ATO for SMFs), when
considering the tax consequences on non-compliance, the seriousness
of the breach and other relevant circumstances, considers that a
notice of compliance should be issued.
If the entity was a SMF for only part of the
year and complied with the above requirements while it was a SMF,
the fund will be a complying fund so long as the trustee did not
fail the culpability test during the period when the fund was not a
SMF (the culpability test is satisfied if the person was directly
or indirectly involved in a contravention of SIS or its
regulations). If the fund came into existence during the year, it
must satisfy a similar test for the period during which it was a
SMF and also comply with requirements relating to the period before
lodgement for treatment as a regulated fund. The proposed section
also contains provisions relating to compliance where a trustee
elects to be treated as a regulated fund during the year.
Where a fund has fewer than 5 members and is not
a SMF, it must have an approved trustee (item 49)
and it will be an offence, with a maximum penalty of 6 months
imprisonment, for a person to act as a trustee without approval
(The offence will be one of strict liability so that there will be
no need to prove intent or negligence.) (item 50).
(The offence will commence on 1 July 2000 - subclause 2(3)).
Administration
For SMFs, the ATO will have general
administration of SIS and its regulations that are relevant to SMFs
(eg. annual returns, complying status, duties of trustees and
investment managers and accounts and statements) (item
10).
Item 56 will insert a new Part
24B, dealing with the administration of funds with fewer than 5
members by APRA and the ATO. More important provisions relate
to:
-
- the ability of APRA and the ATO to require regarding the
current or potential status of a fund as a SMF (proposed section
252A)
-
- specific secrecy provisions to protect information gained by
the ATO in administering SMFs, and
-
- transitional provisions regarding the provision of information,
lodging of returns and authorisation of instruments while SMFs
change from APRA to the ATO.
The Superannuation (Excluded Funds)
Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1991 will be amended by
items 7 to 12 of Schedule 2 of the Bill to reduce
the maximum supervisory levy for SMFs to a maximum of $200 per year
and the late lodgement penalty for returns to a maximum of $25.
As noted above, the amendments are likely to
have an effect on current excluded funds that have as a member a
person who is a member of a same sex couple. Currently, SIS and its
regulations are not concerned with the status of the relationship
of members of an excluded fund and it is possible to organise an
excluded fund so that the benefits can be directed to a person who
is a member of a same sex couple. Under the proposed rules where
members of the fund must be relatives or have another sufficient
link, it will be necessary to alter the trust so that it ceases to
be a SMF and becomes a 'standard' regulated fund, so that the
trustee is approved and stricter control by APRA, rather than the
ATO, will apply. While this may be a relatively minor matter, it is
a further and new example of the problems caused to same sex
couples by the definition of spouse contained in SIS.
An alternative to the requirement that all the
members of the fund be linked is found in the passage from the
Wallis Report quoted above, which recommended that all
beneficiaries of such funds be trustees. While the Bill implements
this recommendation, so that all members of the fund are required
to be trustees, it adds the further requirement that they be
linked. The later requirement appears not to be based on the Wallis
Report recommendations.
-
- Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Superannuation
Trends - December 1998, p. 6.
- Financial System Inquiry Final Report, March 1997, p. 333.
- Ibid., 334.
- 1998-99 Budget Paper No. 2, p. 2-11.
Chris Field
26 May 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1999.
Back to top