Search

Offering end of life support as part of home care is important – but may face some challenges

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-tieman-378102">Jennifer Tieman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a> Earlier this month, the government announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-a-new-plan-for-residential-aged-care-heres-whats-changing-238765">major changes</a> to aged care in Australia, including a A$4.3 billion <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-governments-home-care-changes-mean-for-ageing-australians-238890">investment in home care</a>. Alongside a shake up of home care packages, the Support at Home program will include an important addition – an <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/support-at-home-fact-sheet.pdf">end of life pathway</a> for older Australians. This pathway will allow access to a <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/support-at-home/features">higher level</a> of in-home aged care services to help Australians stay at home as they come to the end of their life. Specifically, it will provide an extra A$25,000 for palliative support when a person has three months or less left to live. This is a positive change. But there may be some challenges to implementing it. <h2>Why is this important?</h2> Older people have made clear their preference to remain in their homes as they age. For <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269216313487940">most people</a>, home is where they would like to be during their last months of life. The space is personal, familiar and comforting. However, data from the <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/classifying-place-death-australian-mortality-statistics">Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> shows most people who die between the ages of 65 and 84 die in hospital, while most people aged 85 and older die in residential aged care. This apparent gap may reflect a lack of appropriate services. Both palliative care services and GPs have an important role in providing medical care to people living at home with a terminal illness. However, being able to <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/815-dying-well.pdf">die at home</a> relies on the availability of ongoing support including hands-on care and assistance with daily living. Family members and friends often provide this support, but this is not always possible. Even when it is, carers may <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38533612/">lack confidence and skills</a> to provide the necessary care, and may not have enough support for and respite from their carer role. The palliative care funding offered within Support at Home should help an older person to remain at home and die at home, if that is their preference. Unless someone dies suddenly, care needs are likely to increase at the end of a person’s life. Supports at home may involve help with showering and toileting, assessing and addressing symptoms, developing care plans, managing medications, wound dressing, domestic tasks, preparing meals, and communicating with the person’s family. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists can assist with equipment requirements and suggest home modifications. End of life supports may also involve clarifying goals of care, contacting services such as pharmacists for medications or equipment, liaising with organisations about financial matters, respite care or funeral planning, as well as acknowledging grief and offering spiritual care. But we don’t know yet exactly what services the $25,000 will go towards. <h2>What do we know about the scheme so far?</h2> The Support at Home program, including the end of life pathway, is scheduled to start from <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/support-at-home-fact-sheet.pdf">July 1 2025</a>. We know the funding is linked to a prognosis of three months or less to live, which will be determined <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-15/new-payment-aims-to-make-it-easier-for-people-to-die-at-home/104347984">by a doctor</a>. Further information has indicated that an older person can be referred to a <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/support-at-home/features">high-priority assessment</a> to access the end of life pathway. We don’t know yet what this means, however they don’t need to be an existing Support at Home participant to be eligible. The pathway will allow 16 weeks to use the funds, possibly to provide some leeway around the three-month timeline. Although more details are coming to light, there are still some things which remain unclear. Home care providers will be looking for details on what can be covered by this funding and how they will work alongside primary care providers and health-care services. Older people and their families will want to know the processes to apply for this funding and how long applications will take to be reviewed. Everyone will want to know what happens if the person doesn’t die within three months. <h2>Some challenges</h2> Ready availability of appropriate supports and services will be crucial for older people accessing this pathway. Home care providers will therefore need to assess how an end of life pathway fits into their operational activities and how they can build the necessary skills and capacity. Demand for nurses with palliative care skills and allied health professionals is likely to increase. Providing end of life care can be <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33096682/">especially taxing</a> so strategies will be needed to prevent staff burnout and encourage self-care. How pathways are implemented in rural and remote areas and in different cultural and community groups will need to be monitored to ensure all older people benefit. Effective coordination and communication between home care, primary care and specialist palliative providers care will be key. Digital health systems that connect the sectors could be helpful. Family engagement will also be very important. Escalation pathways and referral pathways should be established to enable appropriate responses to emergencies, unexpected deterioration, and family distress. Finally, <a href="https://bmcpalliatcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12904-023-01155-y">accurately determining</a> when someone will die can be difficult. Knowing when the last three months of life starts may not be easy, particularly where frailty, cognitive issues and multiple health concerns may be present. This might mean some people are not seen as being ready for this pathway. Others may not be willing to accept this prognosis. An older person may also be expected to live with a terminal illness for many months or years. Their palliative care needs would not be met under this pathway. Despite these challenges, the announcement of an end of life pathway within the home care program is timely and welcome. As a population we are living longer and dying older. More details will help us be better prepared to implement this scheme.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/239296/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-tieman-378102">Jennifer Tieman</a>, Matthew Flinders Professor and Director of the Research Centre for Palliative Care, Death and Dying, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/offering-end-of-life-support-as-part-of-home-care-is-important-but-may-face-some-challenges-239296">original article</a>. </div>

Retirement Life

The biggest faux pas for self-funded retirees

Whether you have been retired for some time or are still looking forward to the time you can step back, chances are there are important considerations you may have overlooked. From planning and pensions to family and housing, these are the biggest self-funded retirement mistakes I come across, and some insights into how to avoid repeating them: <ol> <li>Lack of a plan</li> </ol> Not having a retirement plan is perhaps the most basic faux pas, but often the most costly. A detailed plan should cover things like: <ul> <li>When you AND your partner will retire </li> <li>Where you will live (you may want to downsize, relocate, seek assisted living)</li> <li>Anticipated living costs (living situation, health, lifestyle)</li> <li>How you will spend your time (hobbies, travel, volunteering, time with family)</li> <li>Strategies to maximise investments and superannuation</li> <li>Tax minimisation strategies</li> </ul> Remember: failing to plan = planning to fail. <ol start="2"> <li>Poor planning</li> </ol> Having a plan is the starting point, but it won’t get you far if it’s incomplete, not updated as circumstances change, or omits critical factors. For couples, not considering age differences is a big mistake. One partner retiring before the other can have big shifts on financial and tax dynamics and even the relationship itself. Then there is end-of-life care, particularly if the younger partner is still working. Not building in a safety buffer is another no-no. Too many retirees have been caught out by the high inflation of recent years, having calculated their anticipated income needs on much lower living costs. Balance short-term and long-term goals: being overly conservative early on can limit your financial situation down the track. And no plan is complete without contingencies for worst case scenarios – insurances, protections, back-up options. <ol start="3"> <li>Insecure housing </li> </ol> Government data has long shown major differences in quality of life for retirees who own their home versus those who don’t. Homelessness or insecure housing, the mercy of the rental market, and inability to customise your home as you age or if you need specialised support with disability or health issues are some of the challenges renters face. Furthermore, public estimates of how much the average Australian needs to retire typically assume home ownership – meaning rent is not part of that calculation. That’s a huge living cost you may not have factored into your retirement planning. <ol start="4"> <li>Unclaimed pensions</li> </ol> Contrary to popular belief, self-funded retirement and claiming a pension are not mutually exclusive. You may be eligible for a part-pension, calculated pro-rata according to the value of your assets and other income. Claiming a part-pension, no matter how small it may be, reduces how much income you need to draw down from super – making it last longer. Don’t fall into another common trap when applying – overestimating your assets. It’s easy to assume your non-monetary assets are worth more than what they really are, reducing how much pension you receive or negating your eligibility altogether. <ol start="5"> <li>Depleted Bank of Mum and Dad</li> </ol> With home ownership increasingly out of reach for younger adults, the Bank of Mum and Dad is often sought to bridge the gap. How you do so will impact your own situation. Giving more than you can afford can leave you overstretched. Missed loan repayments could see you fall behind on your own bills. Not putting agreements in writing can lead to disputes down the track. Having a loan guarantee called in could see you homeless. Be wise about decisions you make here and don’t let heartstrings cloud your judgement. <ol start="6"> <li>Suffering in silence</li> </ol> Elder abuse is a sad but significant problem. Given they have money in the bank, self-funded retirees are often the most vulnerable. Its effects can be far-reaching, impacting your mental and physical health, financial wellbeing, social interactions, and quality of life. Be aware of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/retirement-income/are-you-a-victim-of-elder-abuse-without-even-realising-it">the signs that something isn’t right</a>. If you recognise it happening to you – or someone you know – speak up and seek help. <ol start="7"> <li>Forgoing professional advice</li> </ol> How much of the above details did you already know? Chances are, not all of them. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Money is a complicated business and you simply don’t know what you don’t know, which is why seeking independent, tailored advice from a professional is so important. A good financial advisor can help you identify new opportunities and manage risks you may not have considered, limit expenses and also work with your accountant to minimise your tax. Helen Baker is a licensed Australian financial adviser and author of On Your Own Two Feet: The Essential Guide to Financial Independence for all Women. Helen is among the 1% of financial planners who hold a master’s degree in the field. Proceeds from book sales are donated to charities supporting disadvantaged women and children. Find out more at <a href="http://www.onyourowntwofeet.com.au/">www.onyourowntwofeet.com.au</a> Disclaimer: The information in this article is of a general nature only and does not constitute personal financial or product advice. Any opinions or views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent those of people, institutions or organisations the owner may be associated with in a professional or personal capacity unless explicitly stated. Helen Baker is an authorised representative of BPW Partners Pty Ltd AFSL 548754. Image credits: Shutterstock

Retirement Income

Super funds are using ‘nudges’ to help you make financial decisions. How do they work?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fernanda-mata-1533222">Fernanda Mata</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/breanna-wright-267597">Breanna Wright</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liam-smith-5152">Liam Smith</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Late last year the federal government announced <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/stephen-jones-2022/media-releases/government-unveils-comprehensive-financial-advice">measures</a> to make it easier for Australians to access financial advice. As part of this, the government wants super funds to use “nudges” to get members to engage more with their retirement investments and superannuation, especially when they’re starting work and approaching retirement. While the legislation containing the changes is still in the consultation phase, super funds are <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/super-funds-spend-big-ahead-of-advice-reforms-20240418-p5fkx6">upskilling staff</a> and making other changes to improve customer service or risk a government crackdown. Telling funds to use <a href="https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/blog/nudging-what-is-it-and-how-can-we-use-it-forgood">nudge theory</a> to advise on super comes as more than five million Australians are heading towards retirement. <h2>What is nudge theory?</h2> Nudging is used to encourage people to pick the “better” option, without taking away their freedom to choose differently. For example, sending regular reminders to members about the benefits of voluntary contributions can get them to increase the amount they put in. This nudge makes it easier for them to contribute more – the better option – while still allowing them to choose not to. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/stephen-jones-2022/media-releases/government-unveils-comprehensive-financial-advice">explained</a> the government’s changes were needed because so-called “fin-fluencers” were providing unregulated financial advice on social media platforms to Australians unable to pay an adviser. <h2>Helping people protect their interests</h2> There are three ways, supported by research, nudges can help Australians engage with their super. 1. Future self visualisation This involves getting young people to think about their <a href="https://www.halhershfield.com/considering-the-future-self">future selves</a> and visualise their life in retirement. This can help them to recognise the long-term benefits of getting actively involved with their super. Showing fund members how they might look when older by using an ageing filter software, for example, can make this visualisation more real for them and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23794607231190607">enhance understanding of their future selves, leading to higher engagement</a>. 2. Simplification We all know financial products and superannuation can be complicated. The information and choices presented can lead to <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/choice-overload-bias">decision paralysis</a>, causing people to delay or opt out of making a decision. By simplifying the process, funds can motivate people to get more engaged with their super. To get people to make voluntary contributions, for example, it might be more effective for funds to recommend <a href="https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/how-simple-nudge-can-motivate-workers-save-retirement">a specific percentage of their salary</a> rather than offering several options. Deciding whether to boost contributions by an extra 3%, 4% or 5% can be overwhelming, especially for people with poor <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-financially-literate-here-are-7-signs-youre-on-the-right-track-202331">financial literacy</a>. 3. Language and framing The way options are framed and the language super funds use can significantly impact member engagement. Australians may be more likely to make higher voluntary contributions if they are asked how much they want <a href="https://www.bi.team/press-releases/the-small-nudges-that-could-make-young-people-142000-better-off-in-retirement/">to “invest” in their super </a> instead of how much they want to “contribute” or “add”. The word “invest” encourages people to think about future benefits, motivating them to make higher contributions. How options are labelled can also have an impact on <a href="https://www.bi.team/press-releases/the-small-nudges-that-could-make-young-people-142000-better-off-in-retirement/">member engagement</a> and decision making. For example, highlighting concrete benefits of different voluntary payments, such as “a 4% contribution keeps you above the poverty line”, and “a 10% contribution allows for a comfortable retirement according to Australian standards” can increase how much people are willing to contribute. <h2>Ethical use of nudges</h2> The <a href="https://www.superreview.com.au/news/superannuation/industry-body-backs-super-fund-nudges-though-parameters-need-be-set">Financial Services Council</a> backs the government on getting super funds to nudge members about contributions and investments but says there are limits. Parameters around nudging should be set […] to ensure that the language is appropriate and does not ultimately amount to defaulting. For example, letting a customer know that as they approach retirement, they need to make a decision about what retirement product they wish to utilise would be an acceptable nudge, while contacting a customer to let them know that they will be placed in a product when they retire, would not necessarily be acceptable. The council emphasises the importance of super funds recognising <a href="https://www.superreview.com.au/news/superannuation/industry-body-backs-super-fund-nudges-though-parameters-need-be-set">people’s autonomy</a> when delivering a “soft” or “hard” nudge. Soft nudges are gentle prompts and reminders designed to guide people to make good choices without pressuring them, such as sending an email reminder to review their investment options. Hard nudges are more direct in their guidance. These might include recommending specific investment options. Despite these differences, <a href="https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/blog/can-we-have-a-quiet-word-about-behavioural-science">ethical use of nudges</a> should encourage engagement while respecting people’s autonomy by making it easy for them to opt out. The use of nudges presents a valuable opportunity to increase superannuation fund members’ engagement. Whether through future self visualisation, simplification or language framing, ethical nudges can motivate members to take action, leading to greater confidence in navigating the retirement transition and achieving retirement goals.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/230404/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fernanda-mata-1533222">Fernanda Mata</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/breanna-wright-267597">Breanna Wright</a>, Research fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liam-smith-5152">Liam Smith</a>, Director, BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-funds-are-using-nudges-to-help-you-make-financial-decisions-how-do-they-work-230404">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

Anthony Albanese's new $925 million pledge

Anthony Albanese has pledged $925 million to help victims of domestic violence flee dangerous situations, in the wake of the recent increase of violence against women. The Prime Minister established the Leaving Violence Program on Wednesday, which will invest $925m over a five year period to help women escape violence at home. Albanese convened an urgent national cabinet meeting after declaring violence against women a “national emergency” following the killings of 27 women across Australia this year. Following the crisis talks, the Prime Minister announced the permanent establishment of the government’s Leaving Violence Payment to assist people experiencing violence with the financial costs of leaving a violent situation. “Those eligible will be able to access up to $5000 in financial support along with referral services, risk assessments, and safety planning. This commitment builds on measures put in place by our government to help address financial barriers to escaping violence,” Mr Albanese said. Australia will also introduce legislation that will ban the creation and distribution of deep fake pornography and the sharing of sexually explicit material using technology such as artificial intelligence. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said governments around the world were grappling with how to keep online spaces safe. "I think the other important point to note is that as a society, we do need to do more and this is a role not only for government, not only for regulators and civil society, but also for the platforms themselves," she said. "And part of this is putting the emphasis on the platforms to enforce their existing terms of service and where they are not doing that, to examine what are the measures governments can take." The government will also bring forward legislation in early August to outlaw the release of private information online with an intent to cause harm, known as doxxing. Albanese added that violence against women was a "national crisis", saying, "It's an issue for all of us to work together in the national interest to deal with what is a scourge of violence against women that is having a real impact out there, with one every four days a woman losing their life at the hand of a domestic or former domestic partner," he said. Longer-term priorities include strengthening accountability and consequences for perpetrators, including early intervention with high-risk perpetrators and serial offenders, and better support for victim and survivors. Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Funding for refugees has long been politicized − punitive action against UNRWA and Palestinians fits that pattern

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-r-micinski-207353">Nicholas R. Micinski</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maine-2120">University of Maine</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kelsey-norman-862895">Kelsey Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rice-university-931">Rice University</a> At least a dozen countries, including the U.S., have <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145987">suspended funding to the UNRWA</a>, the United Nations agency responsible for delivering aid to Palestinian refugees. This follows allegations made by Israel that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/at-least-12-u-n-agency-employees-involved-in-oct-7-attacks-intelligence-reports-say-a7de8f36">12 UNRWA employees participated</a> in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack. The UNRWA responded by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-palestinian-refugee-agency-investigates-staff-suspected-role-israel-attacks-2024-01-26/">dismissing all accused employees</a> and opening an investigation. While the seriousness of the accusations is clear to all, and the U.S. has been keen to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/politics/aid-gaza-israel.html">downplay the significance</a> of its pause in funding, the action is not in keeping with precedent. Western donors did not, for example, defund other U.N. agencies or peacekeeping operations amid accusations of <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/11/un-peacekeeping-has-sexual-abuse-problem">sexual assault</a>, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-un-general-assembly-president-and-five-others-charged-13-million-bribery-scheme">corruption</a> or <a href="https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html">complicity in war crimes</a>. In real terms, the funding cuts to the UNRWA will affect <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip">1.7 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza</a> along with an additional 400,000 Palestinians without refugee status, many of whom benefit from the UNRWA’s infrastructure. Some critics have gone further and said depriving the agency of funds <a href="https://jacobin.com/2024/01/unrwa-defunding-gaza-israel">amounts to collective punishment</a> against Palestinians. Refugee aid, and humanitarian aid more generally, is theoretically meant to be neutral and impartial. But as experts in <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/reluctant-reception/558E2A93FF99B8F295347A8FA2053698">migration</a> <a href="https://www.routledge.com/UN-Global-Compacts-Governing-Migrants-and-Refugees/Micinski/p/book/9780367218836">and</a> <a href="https://press.umich.edu/Books/D/Delegating-Responsibility">international relations</a>, we know funding is often used as a foreign policy tool, whereby allies are rewarded and enemies punished. In this context, we believe the cuts in funding for the UNRWA fit a wider pattern of the politicization of aid to refugees, particularly Palestinian refugees. <h2>What is the UNRWA?</h2> The UNRWA, short for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established two years after about <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nakba-at-75-palestinians-struggle-to-get-recognition-for-their-catastrophe-204782">750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes</a> during the months leading up to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war. Prior to the UNRWA’s creation, international and local organizations, many of them religious, provided services to displaced Palestinians. But after <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">surveying the extreme poverty</a> and dire situation pervasive across refugee camps, the U.N. General Assembly, including all Arab states and Israel, voted to create the UNRWA in 1949. Since that time, <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do">the UNRWA has been the primary aid organization</a> providing food, medical care, schooling and, in some cases, housing for the 6 million Palestinians living across its five fields: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, as well as the areas that make up the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The mass displacement of Palestinians – known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nakba-at-75-palestinians-struggle-to-get-recognition-for-their-catastrophe-204782">Nakba, or “catastrophe</a>” – occurred prior to the <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention">1951 Refugee Convention</a>, which defined refugees as anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution owing to “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951.” Despite a <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/4ec262df9.pdf">1967 protocol extending the definition</a> worldwide, Palestinians are still excluded from the primary international system protecting refugees. While the UNRWA is responsible for providing services to Palestinian refugees, the United Nations also created the U.N. Conciliation Commission for Palestine in 1948 to seek a <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/4fe2e5672.html">long-term political solution</a> and “to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.” As a result, the UNRWA does not have a mandate to push for the traditional durable solutions available in other refugee situations. As it happened, the conciliation commission was active only for a few years and has since been sidelined in favor of the U.S.-brokered peace processes. <h2>Is the UNRWA political?</h2> The UNRWA has been <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/palestinian-refugees-dispossession">subject</a> to political headwinds since its inception and especially during periods of heightened tension between Palestinians and Israelis. While it is a U.N. organization and thus ostensibly apolitical, it has <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">frequently been criticized</a> by Palestinians, Israelis as well as donor countries, including the United States, for acting politically. The UNRWA performs statelike functions across its five fields – including education, health and infrastructure – but it is restricted in its mandate from performing political or security activities. Initial Palestinian objections to the UNRWA stemmed from the organization’s early focus on economic integration of refugees into host states. Although the UNRWA officially adhered to the U.N. General Assembly’s <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/content/resolution-194">Resolution 194</a> that called for the return of Palestine refugees to their homes, U.N., U.K. and U.S. <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">officials searched</a> for means by which to resettle and integrate Palestinians into host states, viewing this as the favorable political solution to the Palestinian refugee situation and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this sense, Palestinians perceived the UNRWA to be both highly political and actively working against their interests. In later decades, the UNRWA <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">switched its primary focus</a> from jobs to education at the urging of Palestinian refugees. But the UNRWA’s education materials were <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">viewed</a> by Israel as further feeding Palestinian militancy, and the Israeli government insisted on checking and approving all materials in Gaza and the West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967. While Israel has <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">long been suspicious</a> of the UNRWA’s role in refugee camps and in providing education, the organization’s operation, which is internationally funded, <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/242-unrwas-reckoning-preserving-un-agency-serving-palestinian-refugees">also saves</a> Israel millions of dollars each year in services it would be obliged to deliver as the occupying power. Since the 1960s, the U.S. – UNRWA’s primary donor – and other Western countries have <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">repeatedly expressed their desire</a> to use aid to prevent radicalization among refugees. In response to the increased presence of armed opposition groups, the <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/refuge-and-resistance/9780231202855">U.S. attached a provision</a> to its UNRWA aid in 1970, requiring that the “UNRWA take all possible measures to assure that no part of the United States contribution shall be used to furnish assistance to any refugee who is receiving military training as a member of the so-called Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) or any other guerrilla-type organization.” The UNRWA adheres to this requirement, even publishing an annual list of its employees so that host governments can vet them, but it also <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/242-unrwas-reckoning-preserving-un-agency-serving-palestinian-refugees">employs 30,000 individuals</a>, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian. Questions over the links of the UNRWA to any militancy has led to the rise of Israeli and international <a href="https://cufi.org/issue/unrwa-teachers-continue-to-support-antisemitism-terrorism-on-social-media-un-watch/">watch groups</a> that document the social media activity of the organization’s large Palestinian staff. <h2>Repeated cuts in funding</h2> The United States has used its money and power within the U.N. to block criticism of Israel, vetoing at least <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_table_en.htm">45 U.N. resolutions</a> critical of Israel. And the latest freeze is not the first time the U.S. has cut funding to the UNRWA or other U.N. agencies in response to issues pertaining to the status of Palestinians. In 2011, the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE79U5ED/#:%7E:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The%20United,grant%20the%20Palestinians%20full%20membership.">U.S. cut all funding to UNESCO</a>, the U.N. agency that provides educational and cultural programs around the world, after the agency voted to admit the state of Palestine as a full member. The Obama administration defended the move, claiming it was required by a 1990s law to defund any U.N. body that admitted Palestine as a full member. But the impact of the action was nonetheless severe. Within just four years, UNESCO was <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12459">forced to cut its staff in half</a> and roll back its operations. President Donald Trump later <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-israel-officially-withdraw-from-unesco">withdrew the U.S. completely from UNESCO</a>. In 2018, the Trump administration paused its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/trump-unrwa-palestinians.html">US$60 million contribution to the UNRWA</a>. Trump claimed the pause would create political pressure for Palestinians to negotiate. President Joe Biden restarted U.S. contributions to the UNRWA in 2021. <h2>Politicization of refugee aid</h2> Palestinian are not the only group to suffer from the politicization of refugee funding. After World War II, states established different international organizations to help refugees but strategically excluded some groups from the refugee definition. For example, the U.S. funded the <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/last-million-eastern-european-displaced-persons-postwar-germany">U.N. Relief and Rehabilitation Administration to help resettle displaced persons after World War II</a> but resisted Soviet pressure to forcibly repatriate Soviet citizens. The U.S. also created a separate organization, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article-abstract/1/4/501/1598187">the precursor to the International Organization for Migration</a>, to circumvent Soviet influence. In many ways, the UNRWA’s existence and the exclusion of Palestinian refugees from the wider refugee regime parallels this dynamic. Funding for refugees has also been politicized through the earmarking of voluntary contributions to U.N. agencies. Some agencies receive funding from U.N. dues; but the UNRWA, alongside the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, receive the majority of their funding from voluntary contributions from member states. These contributions can be earmarked for specific activities or locations, leading to donors such as the <a href="https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PEIO12_paper_107.pdf">U.S. or European Union dictating which refugees get aid and which do not</a>. Earmarked contributions amounted to nearly <a href="https://unsceb.org/fs-revenue-agency">96% of the UNHCR’s budget, 96% of the IOM’s budget and 74% of UNRWA funding in 2022</a>. As a result, any cuts to UNRWA funding will affect its ability to service Palestinian refugees in Gaza – especially at a time when so many are <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/famine-looms-in-gaza-israel-war-intl/index.html">facing hunger, disease and displacement</a> as a result of war.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222263/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-r-micinski-207353">Nicholas R. Micinski</a>, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maine-2120">University of Maine</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kelsey-norman-862895">Kelsey Norman</a>, Fellow for the Middle East, Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rice-university-931">Rice University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-for-refugees-has-long-been-politicized-punitive-action-against-unrwa-and-palestinians-fits-that-pattern-222263">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Couple who found love in chemotherapy raise funds for final trip

Ainslie Plumb, 22, and Joe Fan, 29, found love in an unexpected place, at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. The couple met in 2022 while they were both undergoing leukaemia treatment. “We met at an event for young people with cancer and became friends following that,” Plumb told 7News. “(We) would hang out during our hospital stays, I asked him out in October 2022 and (we) have been together ever since.” While Plumb successfully entered remission, last October, Fan was told that he was now terminal, as doctors had run out of options to treat his Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. With only months left to live, Fan, who has actively given back to the hospital and cancer community by playing his violin for patients and staff and worked with the Queensland Youth Cancer Service, has one final wish - to travel. The couple have set a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-joe-live-his-dreams" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GoFundMe</a>, to help raise funds which cover flights, accommodation and specialised travel insurance, for Fan's final trip. “I go through my cancer treatments and observe the toll that takes on my physical and mental wellbeing,” Fan said. “The end of a trip can hopefully mark the start of another — and I have held onto hope, looked forward and dreamed for one more trip, more time, one more experience with that someone I love.” Their first destination will be Taiwan and Hong Kong, where Fan's parents are from and where he spent a majority of his childhood. They also intend to travel to New Zealand and Western Australia to swim with whale sharks at Ningaloo in the state’s north. “We’re aiming at going at the end of February to give us time to co-ordinate with his doctors around his appointments and infusions, which are all booked in advance,” Plumb said. “We recently reached 75 per cent on the fundraiser and are hoping to hit 100 per cent perhaps by the end of January.” As of today, the couple have successfully raised over $21,000 from their $20,000 goal, and have thanked everyone in their community and strangers for their support. “Truly, words do not suffice,” the couple said. Images: 7News

Relationships

Gina Rinehart's bid to save the Commonwealth Games

Gina Rinehart has thrown her support behind a bid to save the 2026 Commonwealth Games, after Victoria abandoned hosting the event. Australia's richest person has vowed to work with sporting officials and Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate to help salvage the Games and move them to Queensland, after Victorian premier Dan Andrews pulled the pin on the event over major budget issues. Gina's support comes amid fears the Commonwealth Games are in free fall after Canada pulled out of a bid to host the 2030 Games, meaning the Games currently have no future events planned and no host city. Following Victoria's abandonment of the 2026 Games, London, New Zealand and several cities in Scotland have launched campaigns to host the event, with each of them garnering some public support. According to reports from the <a title="www.couriermail.com.au" href="https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/gina-rinehart-backs-gold-coast-bid-for-2026-commonwealth-games/news-story/3a6d0b2b4acb5ff522dde7ea4bd3e6b7" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-tgev="event119" data-tgev-container="bodylink" data-tgev-order="3a6d0b2b4acb5ff522dde7ea4bd3e6b7" data-tgev-label="sport" data-tgev-metric="ev">Courier Mail,</a> Rinehart is not prepared to fund the Games herself, but is prepared to do whatever is needed to help the Gold Coast secure the Commonwealth Games. A spokesman for Rinehart said “direct athlete support” would remain the focus of Hancock Prospecting’s sports funding program, but she would back a Gold Coast bid. “Having seen the joy that athletes and their families experienced when competing in front of a home crowd for the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games, Mrs Rinehart would certainly welcome the 2026 event to again be held in Australia, especially at the Gold Coast, where it was run so successfully before,” her spokesman said. Mayor Tate said Rinehart’s commitment was a significant endorsement in the Gold Coast, which he said could host the Games again at a cost of just over $1 billion. The city hosted the 2018 Commonwealth Games and would have the facilities to hold the event just eight years later. “Her statement sends a clear message: We must show what we are capable of as a country,” Tate said. “The Aussie athletes deserve it, as does every young kid who dreams of representing their country." “The momentum behind a 2026 Gold Coast Games is growing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> The <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> (MRFF) is a A$20 billion fund to support Australian health and medical research. It was set up in 2015 to deliver practical benefits from medical research and innovation to as many Australians as possible. Unlike the other research funding agencies, such the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), most of the MRFF funding is priority-driven. It seeks to fund research in particular areas or topics rather than using open calls when researchers propose their own ideas for funding. As the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-how-you-run-a-1b-scheme-science-fund-backers-lead-chorus-for-reform-20230619-p5dhni.html">Nine newspapers</a> outlined this week, researchers have criticised the previous Coalition government’s allocation of MRFF funds. There is widespread consensus the former health minister had <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-centre-never-built-and-a-hospital-that-missed-out-the-coalition-s-unusual-20b-research-fund-20230619-p5dhng.html">too much influence</a> in the allocation of funds, and there was limited and sometimes no competition when funding was directly allocated to one research group. The current Health Minister, Mark Butler, has instituted a <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/billion-dollar-medical-research-grants-process-under-review/">review</a>. So how should the big decisions about how to spend the MRFF be made in the future to maximise its value and achieve its aims? <h2>Assess gaps in evidence</h2> Research priorities for the MRFF are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-medical-research-advisory-board-amrab?language=und">Australian Medical Research Advisory Board</a>, which widely consults with the research sector. However, most researchers and institutions will simply argue more funding is needed for their own research. If the board seeks to satisfy such lobbying, it will produce fragmented funding that aligns poorly with the health needs of Australians. A better approach would be to systematically assemble evidence about what is known and the key evidence gaps. Here, the board would benefit from what is known as a “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484602/">value of information</a>” framework for decision-making. This framework systematically attempts to quantify the most valuable information that will reduce the uncertainty for health and medical decision-making. In other words, it would pinpoint which information we need to allow us to better make health and medical decisions. There have been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288400/">attempts</a> to use this method in Australia to help inform how we prioritise hospital-based research. However, we now need to apply such an approach more broadly. <h2>Seek public input</h2> A structured framework for engaging with the public is also missing in Australia. The public’s perspective on research prioritisation has often been overlooked, but as the ultimate consumers of research, they need to be heard. Research is a highly complex and specialised endeavour, so we can’t expect the public to create sensible priorities alone. One approach used overseas has been developed by the <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/">James Lind Alliance</a>, a group in the United Kingdom that combines the public’s views with researchers to create agreed-on priorities for research. This is done using an intensive process of question setting and discussion. Priorities are checked for feasibility and novelty, so there is no funding for research that’s impossible or already done. The priorities from the James Lind Alliance process can be surprising. The top priority in the area of <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/irritable-bowel-syndrome/top-10-priorities.htm">irritable bowel syndrome</a>, for example, is to discover if it’s one condition or many, while the second priority is to work on bowel urgency (a sudden urgent need to go to the toilet). While such everyday questions can struggle to get funding in traditional systems that often focus on novelty, funding research in these two priority areas could lead to the most benefits for people with irritable bowel syndrome. <h2>Consider our comparative advantages</h2> Australia is a relatively small player globally. To date, the MRFF has allocated around <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-grant-recipients?language=und">$2.6 billion</a>, just over 5% of what the United States allocates through the National Institute of Health funding in a <a href="https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-health-research-and-development/monitoring/investments-on-grants-for-biomedical-research-by-funder-type-of-grant-health-category-and-recipient">single year</a>. A single research grant, even if it involves a few million dollars of funding, is unlikely to lead to a medical breakthrough. Instead, the MRFF should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage. This could involve building on past success (such as the research that led to the HPV, or human papillomavirus, vaccine to prevent cervical cancer), or where Australian researchers can play a critical role globally. However, there is an area where Australian researchers have an absolute advantage: using research to improve our own health system. A prime example would be finding ways to improve dental care access in Australia. For example, a randomised trial of different ways of providing insurance and dental services, similar to the <a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/projects/hie.html">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a> conducted in the United States in the 1970s. This could provide the evidence needed to design a sustainable dental scheme to complement Medicare. Now that is something the MRFF should consider as a funding priority.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209977/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, Professor of Statistics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/medical-research-future-fund-has-20-billion-to-spend-heres-how-we-prioritise-who-gets-what-209977">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Are bigger super funds better? Actually no, despite what the industry is doing

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-warren-3657">Geoff Warren</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Australia’s superannuation funds are getting bigger – and fewer. There were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/29/australian-superannuation-mergers-cut-number-of-funds-by-half-in-a-decade">close to 400</a> funds in 2010. With mergers, it’s now <a href="https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/53144-are-mega-funds-poised-to-dominate-the-super-industry">closer to 120</a>. By 2025, according to industry executives surveyed last year, there will be <a href="https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/50971-rise-of-mega-funds-set-to-intensify-erasing-100-funds-by-2025">fewer than 50</a>. The portfolios of the two biggest super funds, AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust, are bigger than even the federal government’s Future Fund Management Agency, which oversees the A$194 billion <a href="https://yearinreviewfy22.futurefund.gov.au/performance-results.html">Future Fund</a> and several other funds worth a total $242 billion. <hr /> <iframe id="0wOBb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0wOBb/5/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Underpinning this consolidation is the idea that larger scale is beneficial for superannuation fund members. But that’s not necessarily true. A bigger fund is no guarantee of better returns. I’ve examined the issue of fund scale with Scott Lawrence, an investment manager with 35 year’s industry experience. Together we’ve written <a href="https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Does-Size-Benefit-Super-Fund-Members-24-March-2023.pdf">a report</a> for the Conexus Institute, an independent research centre focused on superannuation issues. Our conclusion: funds, large and small alike, succeed or fail depending on how well they formulate and execute their strategies. <h2>Managing assets in-house</h2> The first potential benefit of bigger size is that funds can manage assets using their own dedicated investment professionals, rather than outsourcing everything to external investment managers to invest on their behalf. For example, UniSuper (the higher education industry fund) manages <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/how-we-invest/investment-managers">70% of assets in-house</a>. AustralianSuper, with more than double UniSuper’s assets, manages <a href="https://www.australiansuper.com/-/media/australian-super/files/about-us/annual-reports/2022-annual-report.pdf">53% of assets</a> in-house. This can be cheaper than paying fees as a percentage of assets to these external providers. It offers more control as the super fund can decide the assets in which they invest, rather than leaving the decision to someone else. But fund members will only benefit if the internal team makes investment decisions that are as good as the service they are replacing. For this reason, there is no reliable correlation between performance and degree of in-house management. <h2>Investing in big-ticket items</h2> The second potential benefit is it becomes more possible to become successful direct investors in “big ticket” assets such as infrastructure and property, instead of just focusing on shares and other assets traded on stock exchanges. For example, AustralianSuper owns <a href="https://www.australiansuper.com/-/media/australian-super/files/about-us/media-releases/australiansuper-increases-investment-in-westconnex.pdf">20.5% of WestConnex</a>, Australia’s biggest infracture project, having contributed $4.2 billion to the consortium that is building the mostly underground toll-road system linking western Sydney motorways. Opportunities like this are easier to access by large funds, and can help to diversify their portfolios. But such direct investment is costlier than buying shares and bonds. This limits the potential for fee reductions. For members to benefit, these investments must deliver attractive returns. This requires a fund developing capability in what are specialised markets. Size alone won’t deliver on its own. <h2>Economies of scale and scope</h2> The third potential benefit is that size brings economies of scale and scope. Scale can reduce fees, by spreading the fund’s fixed costs over a larger member base. Our review of the research literature confirms there are solid reasons to expect administration costs to reduce with size, as well as in-house management reducing investment costs. <hr /> <iframe id="26cxr" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/26cxr/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Economies of scope involve an organisation being able to improve or increase services, say by investing in better systems and more staff. But investing in better systems also brings potential pitfalls. Big visionary projects tend to run over time and over budget, and sometimes fail. An example is the disastrous attempts of five industry funds (AustralianSuper, Cbus Super, HESTA, Hostplus and MTAA Super) to develop a shared administration platform, called Superpartners. It was meant to cost $70 million, but development costs blew out to $250 million before <a href="https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2016/12/link-group-completes-superpartners-integration/">they gave up</a>. <h2>Size brings its own challenges</h2> Large funds also face some unique challenges. Because they have more money to invest, they have more work to do in finding sufficient attractive assets to buy. The risk is they need to accept some assets offering low returns to do so. They can also outgrow some market segments, such as owning shares in smaller companies. Large organisations are typically more complex, more bureaucratic and less flexible. They can find it difficult to coordinate staff to work towards a common purpose. These elements may create dysfunction if not managed. This may explain why, despite the potential increased scope of their offerings, surveys suggest large funds tend to deliver <a href="https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2022/08/members-willing-to-pay-for-better-service-post-retirement/">less personalised service</a>. So the idea “bigger is better” is not necessarily true. Large size is not an automatic win. Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and challenges ultimately depends on fund trustees and management doing their jobs well so that members benefit.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203417/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-warren-3657">Geoff Warren</a>, Associate Professor, College of Business and Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-bigger-super-funds-better-actually-no-despite-what-the-industry-is-doing-203417">original article</a>.

Retirement Income

Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions

Australia’s A$3.3 trillion superannuation system is supposed to boost people’s retirement incomes. The government says as much in its <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/c2023-361383.pdf">proposed leglislated objective</a> for superannuation. The system is supported by billions of dollars of tax breaks each year, ostensibly to that end. But there’s just one problem – increasingly, much of what is saved is never spent. Our new report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/super-savings-practical-policies-for-fairer-superannuation-and-a-stronger-budget">Super savings: Practical policies for fairer superannuation and a stronger budget</a>, points out that without an overhaul, super tax breaks are set to do little more than boost the inheritances of Australians with well-off parents. Super contributions and super earnings are both taxed more lightly than other income. These tax breaks cost the budget about $45 billion (2% of Australia’s gross domestic product, or GDP) each year. Treasury predicts that figure will hit 3% of GDP by 2060, and that the cost of super tax breaks will overtake the cost of the age pension by as soon as 2036. Super tax breaks are also unfair: about two-thirds go to the top 20% of earners. This means the tax breaks provide the biggest boost to the super accounts of high earners, who will almost all have a comfortable retirement regardless, and who tend to save the same regardless of the tax rate imposed. The wealthiest 10% of Australians get a bigger boost to their retirement savings from super tax breaks than poorer Australians get from the age pension. But much of what is saved for retirement never actually gets spent in retirement. Earlier research by <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/balancing-act/">Grattan Institute</a> and the <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/p2020-100554-udcomplete-report.pdf">2020 Retirement Income Review</a> found that, for a variety of reasons, spending falls substantially during retirement. Retirees often end up leaving much of their nest egg untouched, bequeathing it to their children. This means billions of dollars in super tax breaks simply end up boosting the inheritances received by the children of well-off parents. It makes super a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. This problem is set to get worse. With the rate of compulsory superannuation legislated to rise from 10.5% of wages to 12% by 2025, future generations of retirees are set to retire with even larger nest eggs that they will never spend. Treasury projects that by 2059, one in every three dollars paid out of the super system will be a bequest, up from one in every five today. Big inheritances boost the jackpot from the birth lottery. They help richer children get richer. Among the Australians who received an inheritance over the past decade, the wealthiest fifth received on average <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-great-australian-nightmare/">three times</a> as much as the poorest fifth. To help reverse this, the government needs to rein in the super tax breaks. <h2>How to make super fairer</h2> The government’s policy, <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/superannuation-tax-breaks">announced in February</a>, of taxing the earnings on balances bigger than $3 million at 30%, instead of 15%, will help. But the threshold ought to be lowered to $2 million. Balances between $2 million and $3 million are very unlikely to be spent in retirement, so winding back tax breaks on earnings on balances bigger than $2 million would further wind back taxpayer-funded bequests. And there’s more. Currently, many wealthier Australians receive a larger tax break per dollar contributed to super than many low income earners. Yet low earners have more to be compensated for. Putting money into their super cuts their age pension in retirement, and they live shorter lives, meaning less time to enjoy their super in retirement. The pre-tax contributions of people earning more than $220,000 a year should be taxed at 35%, instead of the 30% charged to those earning more than $250,000 currently. That would still offer a 10% tax break on super contributions for high earners (given the top marginal rate of 45%) and at least a 15% break on the contributions of low and middle earners. And the annual pre-tax contributions cap should be lowered from $27,500 to $20,000. Contributions above this level tend to be made by people close to retirement with already-high balances. <h2>Tax earnings in retirement the same as while working</h2> On the earnings side, the tax-free earnings enjoyed by retirees on their first $1.7 million ($1.9 million from 1 July this year) of their super should go. Superannuation earnings in retirement should be taxed at 15%, the same as superannuation earnings before retirement. This would save the budget at least $5.3 billion a year, and much more in future, and make taxing super more simple. More than 70% of this revenue would come from the top 20% of retirees. The top 10% would pay an extra $7,000 to $7,500 a year on average, whereas the poorest half would no more than $200 more each. Both sides of politics say they agree that super shouldn’t be a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. But there’s a long way to go before that vision is reality. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-has-become-a-taxpayer-funded-inheritance-scheme-for-the-rich-heres-how-to-fix-it-and-save-billions-202948" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

What does your health fund know about living costs? Because health cover premiums are on the rise this year too!

Have you noticed more scary headlines about ballooning inflation and climbing interest rates out there lately? While the media love their dramatic headlines, there’s more truth than usual in their scary stats. It’s no secret that a lot of us are feeling squeezed financially at the moment. The cost of living has shot up in recent months - from interest rates, to groceries, and new energy and fuel price hikes, it’s getting harder to make ends meet. Health cover is no exception. In fact, in 2023, health insurance premiums are set to rise by an average of 2.9%... …but did you know that your fund can put your premium up by a lot more than that? It’s true. Don't be fooled by any ‘average’ messaging. An ‘average increase’ is just that - an average. Your premium may be going up by a lot more. OverSixty has partnered with Compare Club, Australia’s most trusted team of health insurance experts,* who spend every day talking to Aussie families – and they’ve recently shared with us two examples: 1. Kevin's policy has gone up by 20% in 2 years - that’s a LOT more than the current rate of inflation it’s being blamed on. 2. Cassie's family combined cover policy is going up by 13.67% or $33.60 a month - that’s over $400 a year on top of her current premium. We know how much households are hurting right now, so Compare Club talked to us about three smart ways to keep your health insurance premiums in check - without compromising your cover: 1. Downsize your policy - only pay for what you need: Are you on a top tier policy you’re not fully using? You might find you can get a Silver Plus or Bronze Plus tier policy with a lower premium, and stay covered for what you need. 2. Split policies - health funds’ best kept secret: If you and your partner have different health needs, splitting your cover across two different policies - or even two different funds - could save your family several hundred dollars in annual premiums. 3. Pay in advance - before your premium rises: You may have noticed that a lot of health funds have delayed their premium increase this year. If yours is one of these, and you can afford to pay your full annual premium before the date of increase, you’ll lock in a full year’s worth of savings for yourself. Know your options: “Health funds are a competitive bunch, so you don’t have to take what your fund dishes out. If you've not reviewed your health cover recently, you could be paying an average of $785^ more than you need.” – Compare Club CEO, Andrew Davis. OverSixty has partnered with Compare Club’s experts who have saved over 136,500 customers an average of $300 on health cover premiums over the last five years^. We’re quite sure you have better things to do with your money than overpaying for health cover. Compare Club have been helping Aussies switch and save on health cover since 2010#, so get in touch and see how much their experts could save you. <h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; line-height: 1.2; color: #212529; font-size: 1.5rem; background-color: #ffffff;">Call 1300 863 204 now, or visit <a style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #258440; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out 0s;" href="https://lp.compareclub.com.au/over60/?utm_medium=partner&utm_source=over60&utm_campaign=raterise&utm_content=nativearticle&category=health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">compare.oversixty.com.au</a> to save today!</h4> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;"> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">*Based on Trustpilot reviews, correct as of 04/01/23 ^Savings based on 136,746 customers between 1 Jan 2018 - 23 December 2022. #Compare Club compares selected products from a panel of trusted insurers. We do not compare all products in the market.

Caring

Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

As the economist Herman Daly pithily said, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment – not the reverse. Nature makes our lives possible through what scientists call <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-humans-really-need-other-species-185171">ecosystem services</a>. Think healthy food, clean water, feed for livestock, building materials, medicine, flood and storm control, recreation, and attractions for tourists. Despite this, Australian businesses and financial institutions have so far failed to track how their activities both rely on and affect nature. This means our investments and superannuation could be exposed to <a href="https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0667/">hidden financial risks</a>because of nature loss – and may also contribute to the destruction of nature. That’s set to change. The private sector is <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-care-of-business-the-private-sector-is-waking-up-to-natures-value-153786">waking up</a> to nature’s value (and the risks of losing it). The world’s biodiversity rescue plan <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-historic-cop15-outcome-is-an-imperfect-game-changer-for-saving-nature-heres-why-australia-did-us-proud-196731">agreed to last year</a> could help motivate governments and businesses to clean up their investments by directing more money to protect nature and less towards <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/28/banks-lent-1-9tn-linked-to-ecosystem-and-wildlife-destruction-in-2019-report-aoe">bankrolling extinction</a>. There’s one crucial plank we’re missing though – mandatory reporting of how businesses both depend on and impact nature. <h2>Nature and financial health are inextricably linked</h2> Fully half of the world’s total economic activity – <a href="https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/half-of-world-s-gdp-moderately-or-highly-dependent-on-nature-says-new-report/">around A$61 trillion</a> – is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services. In Australia, that figure is very similar: <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/the-nature-based-economy-how-australias-prosperity-depends-on-nature">around half</a> of our GDP – $896 billion – has a moderate to very high direct dependence on ecosystem services provided by nature. What happens when we breach nature’s limits? Ecosystem services seize up or collapse, eventually disrupting these sectors. The tireless pollination work of honeybees, for instance, is <a href="https://www.wheenbeefoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Karasinski-JM-2018_The-Economic-Valuation-of-Australian-Managed-and-Wild-Honey-Bee-Pollinators-in-2014-2015.pd">valued at</a> $14 billion a year. Or take Australia’s wheatbelt, where poor soil health is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ldr.3130">now costing</a> farmers almost $2 billion a year in lost income. Ecosystem services are not hypothetical. They have real value – and we will absolutely notice if they are gone. <h2>What does this have to do with my super?</h2> Australia’s super sector is responsible for the retirement savings of around <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/super-statistics/super-accounts-data/multiple-super-accounts-data/">12 million Australians</a>. Super funds are directly exposed to <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/sustainability-blog/nature-risk-is-the-next-challenge-that-demands-a-global-solution">financial risk</a> from nature loss through their investment portfolios. Just as farmers can’t grow crops without healthy soils or pollinators, developers can’t build apartments without timber or environmental permits. In turn, that has implications for their value as investments. And because so many sectors are exposed, classic investment strategies such as <a href="https://moneysmart.gov.au/how-to-invest/diversification">diversification</a> may no longer protect your super from losses. So what are our super funds and banks doing about it? To find out, we <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/risky-business-report">surveyed</a> ten super funds and ten retail banks about their responses to nature-related risks. The survey – commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation – is the first time this has been done in Australia. The findings? Not ideal. Every participating super fund and bank agreed the loss of nature now presented a serious risk to investment returns. They all agreed it was part of their responsibility to members and customers to measure and manage these risks. But only 20% of super funds and 10% of banks had attempted to assess how exposed they were. Again, this is not abstract. Super funds often have large holdings in the big four banks. Together, these banks have $170 billion in exposure to agriculture, mining, fisheries, and forestry – sectors directly reliant on a functioning natural world. So why isn’t it a higher priority? One issue may be that many financial institutions are currently focused on climate change, given how rapidly impacts are mounting. But climate change and the breakdown of natural systems are twin crises. Nature offers far and away the largest method of taking carbon back out of the atmosphere, for instance. But that only works if salt marshes and wetlands and forests are intact. Net zero targets for our banks and super funds are not fully credible unless there is a commitment to end the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/high-level-expert-group">financing of deforestation</a>. Only one organisation, Australian Ethical, had made such a commitment. You would think Australia’s super funds and banks would be interested to find out how exposed their investments were to this growing risk. Tools to do this such as <a href="https://www.ibat-alliance.org/">IBAT</a> and <a href="https://encore.naturalcapital.finance/en">ENCORE</a> are readily available. But to date, our survey findings don’t indicate banks and funds will do this <a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-more-firms-think-mandatory-biodiversity-risk-reporting-needed">voluntarily</a>. <h2>Banks and super funds may soon have to report these risks</h2> The biodiversity rescue plan agreed to last year – known as the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf">Kunming-Montreal agreement</a> – is intended to set expectations for responsible finance and business globally, as the Paris Agreement did for climate change. That means Australia will be expected to introduce disclosure requirements. If this comes to pass, banks, super funds, and the businesses they invest our savings in will have to measure and publicly report their impact on nature – as well as how much they rely on nature to make a profit. First, though, the Australian government must introduce mandatory nature risk reporting. It’s already moving ahead with plans to make climate risk disclosures <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2022-314397">mandatory</a>. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has indicated nature is <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/speeches/address-australian-sustainable-finance-institute-sydney">also on his radar</a>. The question then will be whether making this information public will actually do what we hope it will and use money to help natural systems rather than extract from them. <h2>What happens next?</h2> Since taking office, the Labor government has pledged to take action on the perilous decline of the natural world with plans such as bringing the value of nature into our <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/16/cop15-australia-us-commit-to-measuring-value-of-nature-and-reflecting-it-in-national-accounts">national accounts</a>. While positive, the real action won’t happen until nature risk reporting is mandatory, <a href="https://theconversation.com/complete-elation-greeted-pliberseks-big-plans-to-protect-nature-but-hurdles-litter-the-path-196287">environment laws with teeth</a> are introduced, and until both governments and private industry direct <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12682">serious money</a> into helping nature, not harming it. Risky <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-hopes-private-investors-will-help-save-nature-heres-how-its-scheme-could-fail-193010">nature credit markets</a> aren’t going to cut the mustard. You don’t have to sit back and wait. Why not ask your super fund and bank what nature-related risks they are exposing your money to? Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/losing-the-natural-world-comes-with-major-risks-for-your-super-fund-and-bank-198669" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Super funds should use their substantial holdings for public good

Last month Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveiled the <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-governments-first-budget-delivers-election-promises-but-forecasts-soaring-power-prices-192844">National Housing Accord</a>, intended to build a million new homes in Australia. Part of the plan is to encourage superannuation funds to invest in social and affordable housing. The proposal was met with <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/only-if-the-return-stacks-up-super-funds-will-demand-sweeteners-to-back-labor-housing-plan-20221028-p5btsq.html">criticism</a> from some quarters, with <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/09/hey-labor-hands-off-our-superannuation-savings/">critics arguing</a>Australia’s superannuation savings belongs to its members, "it is their money, not Labor’s play money." These critics are forgetting it was not so long ago people’s taxes (which can also be seen as “their” money) paid everyone’s pensions. And while in consolidated revenue on their way to keeping us in comfort in our old age, these taxes helped build extensive public and social infrastructure. The transfer of retirement funding from the national government to non-government super funds is just one example of the shift from public provision of social goods towards individual accumulation that has defined Australian politics for four decades. This shift, along with associated income tax cuts, has contributed directly to the housing affordability crisis via the emphasis on property as an investment. Australia’s super funds now control <a href="https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/superannuation-statistics">$3.3 trillion</a> – the <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-super">fourth-largest pool</a> of retirement savings in the world. Most of them invest in <a href="https://www.marketforces.org.au/superfunds/">fossil fuels</a> and some, directly or indirectly, in <a href="https://novowealth.com.au/the-dirty-dozen-part-3/">armaments</a>, exploited labour and old-growth logging. All of them invest <a href="https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/50298-super-funds-continue-shift-to-international-investments">internationally</a>where, if they are not doing actual harm, they are still not doing any good for their members in Australia beyond delivering financial returns. Super funds are regulated by federal legislation which originally stipulated they must act in the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-is-winding-back-reforms-meant-to-hold-super-funds-accountable-to-their-members-187594">best interests of their members</a>”. This was changed by the Coalition government in 2020 to read “<a href="https://archive.budget.gov.au/2020-21/factsheets/download/your_future_your_super_factsheet.pdf">best financial interests</a>”. It is this requirement that has the critics of Chalmers’ plan <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/super-funds-cant-solve-our-affordable-housing-problem/">baulking</a>: how can it be in members’ best financial interests to invest in social housing? <h2>Why super funds should invest in social housing</h2> If even 1% of the $3 trillion – $30 billion – were invested in social housing, rental pressures in the private housing market would be massively reduced as tens of thousands of households currently in the private rental market vacated those dwellings for new social housing. The flow-on effects of decent secure housing, including improvements in physical and mental health, and general social welfare are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08854122211012911">well</a> <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration/documents/Final-Report-Trajectories-the-interplay-between-housing-and-mental-health-pathways.pdf">documented</a>. The Albanese government could re-amend the regulations to their earlier form, and could require all super funds to invest a proportion of their portfolios in socially and ethically beneficial activities. Super fund members are workers and members of society too, making up most of the adult population. They would all benefit from a more equal society. <h2>Investing for social good is already happening</h2> Some local funds and other financial institutions are already investing in social goods. Various super funds like <a href="https://www.cbussuper.com.au/super/my-investment-options/investing-in-australia#:%7E:text=Cbus%20Super%27s%20social%20and%20affordable%20housing%20investment&text=The%20Fund%20has%20been%20a,more%20social%20and%20affordable%20housing.">CBus</a> and community banks like <a href="https://bankaust.com.au/impact-finance/inclusive-and-accessible-housing">Bank Australia</a>invest in or give low-interest loans to community housing associations. Australian Super has a 25% stake in <a href="https://assemblecommunities.com/australiansuper-makes-cornerstone-investment-in-assemble-communities/">Assemble</a>, an affordable housing developer – bought before the 2020 amendment. They are taking small steps in a direction that is well-established in many European countries, where the notion of corporate responsibility has much greater resonance. This can be seen in the German constitution, which stipulates property ownership entails obligations, and “<a href="https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/the-german-basic-law-article-14-property-and-the-right-of-inheritance-shall-be">its use shall also serve the public good</a>.” European funds are finding low-yielding, slow-returning investments in social and co-operative housing complement their diverse portfolios well. Germany’s <a href="https://www.umweltbank.de/_Resources/Persistent/3/8/c/c/38ccacb3aabab0e602c8da17624d59d40b4b385f/20220705_UmweltBank_Anno_engl.pdf">UmweltBank</a> supports various housing initiatives including the famous <a href="https://www.umweltbank.de/2019/sauber-finanziert/wohnprojekt-spreefeld">Spreefeld co-op</a> in Berlin, which provides a steady, low-risk return. Investments in social housing are regarded as the lowest risk of all, as rents are mostly paid from financial assistance guaranteed by the state. Pension funds and community banks can commit to the long term, unlike <a href="https://overland.org.au/2021/12/vulture-landlords-and-the-justice-washing-of-housing-struggle/comment-page-1/#comment-1060442">corporate investors</a> that purchase social housing for a limited period before selling it on the private market. Oversight of these initiatives must be careful and regulated, but there is no reason why they should not be implemented. Chalmers’ plan should be applauded, and could go much further. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-funds-should-use-their-substantial-holdings-for-public-good-194443" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Retiree shocked to find super account drained of funds

A retired couple have received the shock of their life after finding out their super was drained to next to nothing after years of hard work. Stephen Lockwood worked his entire life but was forced to retire after having open-heart surgery, a plate placed in his neck for sciatic nerve, and two hip replacements. At 65 years old, Stephen believed that he had enough in his super account for him and his wife Denise. But when Denise went to take a look at the account, she was horrified to find only $48,863.80 of the expected $200,000 that was meant to be in there. It is understood that in 2010, Stephen took advice from MBA Financial Strategists to merge all his super accounts into one. Based on life insurance cover, all three accounts were merged into AXA's Summit Personal Super Plan before merging into AMP the following year. Five years later, Stephen had a record of $79,613.71 in his super but things took a turn despite the couple contributing $800 each month. This was caused by multiple fees each month, particularly for his life insurance and total permanent disability cover, which almost quadrupled from $509 per month in 2013 to $1960 a month this year. He was also being charged for a financial advisor. "They were taking $24,000 a year," Stephen told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/adelaide-couple-call-out-superannuation-fees/3bf0e217-3d45-4dd2-b155-7842490d0205?ocid=Social-9News&fbclid=IwAR0r0e5KfoEOrTIjSGaa_K70Cf7fGheE6E6HeLrsWbGFxDBx6y_pyGX5iv4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a>. Stephen admitted he wasn’t keeping tabs on his account and assumed that being charged for an advisor from MBA Financial Strategist was okay. MBA Financial Strategists told the publication that they attempted to reach out to Stephen in 2017 but heard no response. "At his most recent review in 2017, we alerted Mr Lockwood that his life insurer was increasing his premiums and it would be prudent to review his level of cover," a spokesperson told A Current Affair. "We made multiple attempts to contact Mr Lockwood over a number of years to assist with his annual review, however due to lack of contact we ceased charging his annual fee for advice in 2020.” Stephen’s account has since been referred to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority with AMP cooperating to receive the best possible solution. Image: ACA

Retirement Life

How do I find out what my superannuation fund invests in? A finance expert explains

You want your superannuation savings to be invested in things that also serve the planet’s long-term interests. But how can you be sure your fund’s values align with yours – or even its own claims? This question has become increasingly pertinent as demand for environmentally and socially sustainable investments <a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2022-releases/22-141mr-how-to-avoid-greenwashing-for-superannuation-and-managed-funds/">grows</a> – and with it incentives for financial institutions to put the best spin on their offerings. One consultancy specialising in “responsible investment” reckons <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/superannuation/2021/08/16/greenwashing-super-funds/">10% of the funds</a> it has examined do not have the sustainability orientation they claim. Among those <a href="https://www.edo.org.au/2022/08/10/hestas-fossil-fuel-investments-may-amount-to-a-breach-of-the-law/">accused of greenwashing</a> in recent months is one of Australia’s biggest super funds, HESTA (the industry fund for health and community service workers), which has promoting its “clean energy” credentials while still holding shares in fossil-fuel companies <a href="https://www.ai-cio.com/news/australias-hesta-accused-of-greenwashing/">Woodside and Santos</a>. So how can you check what your superannuation fund invests in? Super funds are legally obliged to disclose how they invest your money in two different disclosure documents – a Product Disclosure Statement and a Portfolio Holdings Disclosure. Both will be available on a super fund’s website, though how easily you can find them will vary. The rest of this article is going to explain what information these documents provide, how useful this information is likely to be, and your best bet to ensure your super fund reflects your values. <h2>The Product Disclosure Statement</h2> Product disclosure statements are required by the financial regulator (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) for all financial products. This document outlines the most basic but important information of an investment product’s features, benefits, risks and costs, including fees and taxes. The format is standardised, with one section (Section 5) covering with “How we invest your money”. The information it contains is broad. At best you’ll learn how the fund splits its investments between safe and riskier assets, and between different asset classes – Australian shares, international shares, property trusts, infrastructure trust, cash and so on. <h2>Portfolio Holding Disclosure</h2> For a comprehensive look at where your money is invested in, you can consider the Portfolio Holdings Disclosure. This document lists a fund’s complete holdings – including the percentage and value of every single company stock held. Portfolio holdings disclosures are relatively new, being obligatory only since March 2022 under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L01531">legislation</a> meant to improve transparency in the sector. However, super funds aren’t obliged to provide this information in a consistent, easily understandable way. For a non-expert who doesn’t know what to look for, the level of detail can be mind-boggling. You may find yourself scrutinising a spreadsheet listing thousands of items. The Australian Retirement Trust’s Portfolio Holdings Disclosure for its “Lifecycle Balanced Pool”, for example, has more than <a href="https://www.australianretirementtrust.com.au/investments/what-we-invest-in/superannuation-investments">8,000</a> line items. Some super funds have made the effort to provide this information in a more user-friendly format. An example is Future Super, which allows you to <a href="https://www.futuresuper.com.au/everything-we-invest-in/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=1757241588&utm_content=68234193065&utm_term=future%20super&campaigntype=SearchNetwork-1757241588&device=c&campaignid=1757241588&adgroup=68234193065&keyword=future%20super&matchtype=p&placement=&adposition=&location=9069039&gclid=CjwKCAjwmJeYBhAwEiwAXlg0AYOEe2tJViZiZBgUk3bt1h9LNuHx1jWnGy6VzqGaNjBzOEi60852JRoCel8QAvD_BwE">search and filter</a> portfolio holdings by asset class and country of origin. But if your concern is to avoid investing in some specific activity such as in mining fossil fuels or gambling, you’ll need to know the companies and other assets you want to avoid for this to be helpful. <h2>Your best options</h2> This is not to say portfolio holding disclosure obligations are useless. They are incredibly useful – a huge leap forward in the sector’s accountability. They just aren’t designed for consumers. So there is still much work to be done to make the sector truly transparent. What would really help is independent certification and ratings of super products, similar to government websites and programs that certify energy efficiency and allow comparison of electricity plans. In the meantime, I can offer you one big tip. Choose a specific superannuation product that markets itself on its environmental or social sustainability credentials. Most super funds now provide these choices alongside their more traditional investment options. There is a variety of “screening” approaches to ethical investments. Some exclude entire sectors. Others include the best environmental and social performers even among “sinful” industries such as tobacco or weapons. So just because a super product is marketed as “ethical” or “sustainable” doesn’t guarantee you will agree with all its investments. But there is a much higher likelihood of it living up to its claims due to greater scrutiny by third parties such as environmental groups as well as the financial regulator. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission put super funds on notice earlier this year with a “<a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/how-to-avoid-greenwashing-when-offering-or-promoting-sustainability-related-products/">guidance note</a>” about the growing risk of greenwashing in sustainability-related financial products. It reminded funds that “making statements (or disseminating information) that are false or misleading, or engaging in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a financial product or financial service” is against the law. So super funds know their portfolios are being scrutinised. Switching your investment option or fund is simpler than you think. You only need to fill out and lodge a form. Just be sure to compare fees and performance, and seek a second opinion from trustworthy adviser before “voting with your wallet”. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-i-find-out-what-my-superannuation-fund-invests-in-a-finance-expert-explains-188802" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

The tricky notion of ‘value’ in the arts

There’s plenty of discussion about arts funding in Australia – but are we ready to tackle tough questions around the “value” of the arts? That’s a challenge that will involve scrutinising the “benefits” delivered by arts programs and rethinking some of our ideas about impact. Recently these questions have been framed in terms of measurement – a phenomenon that has to do with an increased emphasis on what is termed the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/go-on-then-what-are-the-creative-industries-18958">creative</a>” or “cultural” industries. <h2>Welcome to the arts industry</h2> Governments and policy makers concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, and with the demise of traditional economic drivers for development, have turned to these sectors as areas of potential growth. The word “industry” nicely moves the whole area away from anything “non-productive”. This framing of the arts as an industry has fuelled the sometimes strident debate over funding models for the arts, particularly when a funding cut has taken place. Yet for better or worse, the arts and related cultural phenomena represent activities that now have value and benefits for government – so there will be policy delivered upon art producers regardless of the debate. The key issues for all is defining and measuring all the possible permutations of value. <h2>Intrinsic and instrumental benefits</h2> Some clarification is possible if we separate instrumental benefits from intrinsic benefits. Instrumental benefits are those that pertain to social, economic or policy outcomes. An outcome of a community-based theatre production might be to involve disadvantaged sectors of the community, thereby increasing social inclusion. Similarly, a sculpture trail might be established in an economically-depressed region, with the aim of increasing local employment. Such benefits are increasingly cited in the conversations surrounding the impact of the arts. The intrinsic benefits of the arts are less obvious. While not being ignored by arts organisations, and of interest to many artists, the “impact” of art on an individual, a community or on society is a nebulous concept. How did the art resonate with the viewer? Was the community intellectually stimulated? Did the art make a lasting impression? Did it increase social bonding? Much of the policy work done on measuring intrinsic impact is done in the performing arts. Theatre, opera and music companies have a particular interest in measuring intrinsic impact, as their revenue streams rely on a paying audience, and indeed one that returns for future performances. Intrinsic impact factors such as audience engagement and stimulation are part of the concept of “<a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/resources/reports_and_publications/subjects/arts_sector/artisticvibrancy">artistic vibrancy</a>” that the Australia Council uses as a criterion in its <a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/artisticreflectionkit">Artistic Reflection Kit</a> for arts organisations. <h2>Did the art make a difference?</h2> There is little to guide us in understanding such issues in a broader arts context. Certainly museums and galleries, as well as major events such as the <a href="http://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/">Biennale of Sydney</a> undertake visitor surveys. But their findings are frequently framed in relation to audience development or marketing strategy. Engagement sometimes simply means: how many people went, and where were they from? While this sort of information is vital in a world where competition for the cultural tourist is fierce, it does not assist us in understanding the basic question of whether the art, in whatever form, made a “difference” to those that viewed it (however that may be defined) and how that might be considered a “value”. Of course, it can be argued such a question is irrelevant in an artistic sense. Many see any measurement of artistic value as further evidence of the commodification of art. Art producers frequently reject the materialistic concept of “product” being applied to their creative output, and clearly consumer demand is not generally the primary driving force behind art and other cultural-based production. <h2>Product-driven artists</h2> Even so, artists do need to be product-driven. If they are not they risk their artistic integrity, the very thing that challenges their audiences. This means that conventional techniques to “sell” artistic production do not necessarily work. For any exhibitor of challenging art this is a common problem. Do you keep churning out those room-filling blockbuster exhibitions – or curate something that your audience might potentially not actually like? Perhaps splitting value into instrumental benefits and intrinsic benefits is actually unhelpful because it artificially separates the individual/ community/ emotional from the policy/ economic. By this I mean that if a concert does not engage and resonate with visitors by having some intrinsic value, then any other subsequent instrumental benefit simply does not flow on. In other words, if the audience does not like the art, they will not “consume” it (buy, view, etc.). <h2>Art for individuals and communities</h2> For me, taking such an holistic view of artistic endeavours recognises that there is an interconnectedness between individual benefits and societal benefits that is indeed important. What benefits the individual may well benefit that individual’s community – and vice versa. Does this make impact any easier to measure? Or value any easier to define? Perhaps not immediately. But it does provide an alternative way of conceptualising value in the arts, one that may be used to reframe a debate that tends to be weighted toward measuring instrumental benefits. It’s not just that funding bodies find it easier to measure instrumental benefits, it’s that the intrinsic value of art is, by its very nature, difficult to measure. How do you measure intellectual stimulation? Emotional engagement? Joy? Sure, there is research conducted in these areas, but it is not finding its way into the debate over the value of the arts. And until it does the arts will continue to be valued more for its role as a driver of economic development than as a cure for the soul – or worse still, not valued at all. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-tricky-notion-of-value-in-the-arts-20408" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Art

Couple tackle the Nullabor to raise funds for polio charity

A Tasmanian couple are jumping on their bicycles ahead of their 2750-kilometre journey - and they’re doing it to raise funds for a good cause. Phil and Joyce Ogden, who have been members of Rotary for over a decade, are undertaking the trek from Perth to Adelaide as part of an epic fundraiser for Rotary’s END POLIO campaign. The campaign, which was started over 30 years ago by Rotary, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, has been driving towards the goal of completely eradicating Polio, beginning with a project to vaccinate children in the Philippines against the disease in 1979. Now, Polio is believed to only be naturally spreading in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but according to the <a href="https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/wha65/A65_20-en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">World Health Assembly</a>, failing to eradicate the disease would be a “global health emergency”. “We feel the enormous effort which has gone into turning the tide of the disease will be lost if pressure, and fundraising, is not maintained until the final handful of cases is consigned to history,” the Ogdens said in a message to all Rotarians. With the support of their South Launceston Rotary Club, the Odgens have planned to begin their trip in mid-May and hope to raise awareness of the cause along the way. “If we take our collective eyes off the ball, the disease will re-establish,” the couple said. “So, we are still committed to making our personal donations every year but felt we might harness another of our passions, cycling, to push things along - once again with the assistance of Rotary.” With limited sources of water and no shops to buy food from along the Nullarbor, the couple will carry a week’s worth of food and two days of water at a time, and they’re relying on dehydrated food which will be mailed ahead of them. Their upcoming journey isn’t a first for the Ogdens, who have covered more than 100,000 kilometres from crossing the European Alps, the Pyrenees and the Rockies. Heather Chong, the Tasmanian District Governor, praised the pair and described them as “adventurous philanthropists”. The couple have started an <a href="https://raise.rotary.org/phil-ogden/fundraiser" target="_blank" rel="noopener">online fundraiser</a> with a goal of raising $40,000. As of publication, the fundraiser has already collected $10,000 in donations, with every $1 donated prompting the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to contribute $2. Image: Supplied

Caring

Why arts and culture appear to be the big losers in this budget

While one more <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/fletcher/media-release/rise-comes-back-20-million-encore">A$20 million round</a> of the Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand (RISE) Fund was announced as part of the 2022-23 budget to support reactivating the arts and entertainment sector post-Covid-19 lockdowns, this scheme is coming to an end. With funding cuts forecast out to as far as 2025-26, the arts and culture appear to be big losers in this budget. In addition to the $20.0 million in 2022-23 to phase down the RISE Fund, <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-23_infra_pbs_00_itrdc.pdf">the budget includes</a>: <ul> <li> $9.3 million over two years for the National Museum of Australia to support its services impacted by COVID 19 </li> <li> $9 million in 2021-22 for a second round of the Supporting Cinemas’ Retention Endurance and Enhancement of Neighbourhoods (SCREEN) Fund to support independent cinemas affected by COVID 19 </li> <li> an extension of the <a href="https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/funding-and-support/covid-19-support/temporary-interruption-fund">Temporary Interruption Fund</a>, which provides insurance to screen projects shut down due to COVID-related issues, for a further six months to 30 June 2022, and </li> <li> $316.5 million over five years to build an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/news-centre/indigenous-affairs/ngurra-national-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-cultural-precinct">cultural precinct, Ngurra</a>, on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin in the Parliamentary Triangle, on Ngunnawal country (Canberra). </li> </ul> With the loss of COVID stimulus measures, the big losers under arts and culture in the budget are: <ul> <li> the end of the RISE fund, represented in the cut to “arts and cultural development”, receiving $2.4 million in 2023-24, down from $159 million in 2021-22 </li> <li> the loss of $6.4 million in contemporary music related COVID measures, and </li> <li> Screen Australia: its funding will be reduced from a high of $39.5 million in 2021-22 to $11.6 million in 2023-24, reducing funding to <a href="https://twitter.com/ScreenAustralia/status/1509026946579337220">the pre-COVID baseline</a>. </li> </ul> The decline in arts funding fits Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s big picture narrative that the time for “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/17/josh-frydenberg-announces-targeted-cost-of-living-measures-ahead-of-federal-budget">crisis level</a>” spending is now over, and the budget forecasts such as those for arts and culture only “appear” to be bleak due to the tapering down from the crisis level funding. <h2>The end of RISE funding</h2> The government’s biggest arts and culture investment during the pandemic was the RISE fund, which saw <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/mckenzie/media-release/connecting-communities-stronger-future">$200 million</a> go towards 541 projects. The RISE fund represented a move away from the “arms-length” independent funding decisions made by the Australia Council <a href="https://australiacouncil.gov.au/investment-and-development/peer-assessment/">peer assessors</a>. Instead, the arts minister had the ultimate authority regarding RISE. This aspect of RISE was reminiscent of George Brandis’ 2015 <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-brandis-plans-to-insulate-the-arts-sector-from-the-artists-42305">shock annexation</a> of Australia Council funding to the then National Programme for Excellence in the Arts (which then became Catalyst). But the baseline Australia Council funding has remained steady in this year’s budget, rising only in line with inflation. While RISE was a short-term crisis level funding initiative using the arts as an instrument to stimulate the economy, support for the Australia Council in the budget is for the support of “excellent art” for “audiences in Australia and abroad”. The difference in these programs meant RISE funding went not only to not-for-profit arts organisations and individual artists, as the Australia Council primarily supports, but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/nov/23/victorias-performing-arts-win-20m-funding-as-melbourne-readies-for-re-opening">also</a> to commercial creative activity. <h2>A loss of over-all funding</h2> According to the government, the expected decrease in overall cultural funding from 2021-22 to 2022-23 is predominantly driven by the loss of temporary arts funding for economic stimulus. Expenses under the arts and cultural heritage are estimated to decrease by 10.6% in real terms from 2021-22 to 2022-23, and decrease by 13.1% in real terms from 2022-23 to 2025-26. It is not clear why this scaling down of crisis level funding appears to be uneven. In particular, many of Australia’s cultural institutions – who are already <a href="https://theconversation.com/historic-collections-could-be-lost-to-digital-dinosaurs-31524">under pressure</a> when it comes to preserving cultural heritage – are facing significant cuts. The National Museum of Australia is projected to receive $51 million in 2023-24, losing its $9.3 million in COVID support. The National Gallery of Australia’s funding will drop from $49.6 million in 2021-22 to $45.7 million in 2022-23. Funding for the National Library Australia will fall from $61 million in 2022-23 to $47.1 million in the following year. <h2>A commercially driven future?</h2> Over the last two years, the arts were valued by the federal government to the extent that they were able to be used to stimulate the economy. The assumption appears to be that, now that the creative and cultural industries have received a $200 million shot in the arm, they will now be able to stand back up and walk on their own two feet – and help those businesses around them do likewise. It doesn’t appear the RISE Fund, and its ultimate decision making power by the minister, is a template for the future of arts funding in any literal sense because it is due to disappear. But it may have changed the culture of arts funding in this country, explicitly focusing funding on cultural activities and initiatives informed by an overtly commercial mindset. With many artists and organisations still struggling in this “COVID normal” landscape, this budgetary pendulum swing away from funding artistic projects and events paints a bleak picture. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arts-and-culture-appear-to-be-the-big-losers-in-this-budget-180127" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Art

Running low on your rainy day fund?

More than $100 million is sitting with Victoria’s revenue office and is ready to be claimed by thousands of people. The State Revenue Office (SRO) is currently holding $111 million in unclaimed cash and the sum includes money from utility companies, local councils, real estate agents and even lottery tickets. There are more than 740,000 entitlements waiting to be claimed across Victoria. The forgotten cash belongs to people of all ages across the state and data revealed the local government areas that had the most potential claims. The City of Melbourne tops the list with 57,000 potential claims totalling $15.2 million, which means there is an average of $266 per person who is yet to take their money. Monash comes in second place with a total of $7 million in unclaimed funds, followed by Boroondara at $6.7 million and Whitehorse at $4.8 million. There are 24,700 potential claims in the Greater Geelong area and the average they can claim is $120. There is also unclaimed Tattersalls, Intralot and Tabcorp prizes that have been unclaimed for six months. The highest unclaimed gaming ticket is $2,136,327 from Tattersalls, which was received in March 2016. So, how do you search and claim forgotten cash? Anyone who wants to search and claim forgotten cash can do so for free via the <a href="https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/unclaimed-money">SRO website.</a> To search the register, Victorians need to provide their name or company name, the address they believe unclaimed money would have been linked to at the time and the postcode. Anyone claiming lottery or TAB winnings must supply the original ticket. Image: Getty

Retirement Income

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

As another year of music festivals and summer events have been cancelled in the eleventh hour by the pandemic, the NSW government has put their hand up to help the arts. The state government recently announced the Event Saver Fund, which is aimed at financially supporting the state’s music industry that has been devastated by the latest wave of Omicron. At a recent press conference, NSW Treasurer Matt Kean revealed that a $43 million fund has been established for organisers of the cancelled events to be financially supported if they've been cancelled or may be affected by changes to public health orders. “This fund is a $43 million fund that will ensure that we will underwrite sunk costs for the festivals that could be impacted by changes to public health orders,” he said. The fund will help organisers to pay their staff and suppliers, as well as recoup other costs lost in the event planning that got cancelled or cut short due to lockdowns or border closures. Minister for the Arts Ben Franklin said the vital funding will give event organisers to continue to plan festivals without the stress of a last-minute cancellation costing them thousands. “Major events provide tremendous social benefits to the community, bringing us together to enjoy live performances,” he said. “As we look to rebound from the effects of the past two years, this funding will help support local jobs and ensure major event organisers can plan with confidence to safely deliver their events in 2022/23.” Australian Festivals Association chair Julia Robertson welcomed the Event Saver package, and emphasised how much the industry has suffered since the start of the pandemic. “This package is really great for building confidence,” she said. “For helping those festivals that have got events coming up — to maintain those festival lineups — but also to those events that have had to be cancelled over the last couple of weeks due to the Omicron variant. “We will be able to help those events recover some of those costs that they’ve lost. We’ve got a really long way to building that confidence for the festival industry, so thank you.” Image credits: Getty Images

Music

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Offering end of life support as part of home care is important – but may face some challenges

The biggest faux pas for self-funded retirees

Super funds are using ‘nudges’ to help you make financial decisions. How do they work?

Anthony Albanese's new $925 million pledge

Funding for refugees has long been politicized − punitive action against UNRWA and Palestinians fits that pattern

Couple who found love in chemotherapy raise funds for final trip

Gina Rinehart's bid to save the Commonwealth Games

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

Are bigger super funds better? Actually no, despite what the industry is doing

Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions

What does your health fund know about living costs? Because health cover premiums are on the rise this year too!

Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

Super funds should use their substantial holdings for public good

Retiree shocked to find super account drained of funds

How do I find out what my superannuation fund invests in? A finance expert explains

The tricky notion of ‘value’ in the arts

Couple tackle the Nullabor to raise funds for polio charity

Why arts and culture appear to be the big losers in this budget

Running low on your rainy day fund?

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

Our Partners