Search

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

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

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

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

Labor’s proposed $10 billion social housing fund isn’t big as it seems, but it could work

The centrepiece of Labor’s election program so far is its A$10 billion social housing policy, officially called the <a href="https://alp.org.au/policies/housing_future_fund">Housing Australia Future Fund</a>. In the first five years the fund would be used to build <ul> <li> 20,000 social housing properties for people on low incomes - 4,000 of the 20,000 for women and children fleeing violence and for low income older women at risk of homelessness </li> <li> 10,000 “affordable” housing properties </li> <li> $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvements of housing in remote Indigenous communities </li> <li> $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women and children fleeing violence and for low income older women at risk of homelessness </li> <li> $30 million to build more housing and fund specialist services for veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness </li> </ul> Although needed, its a far short of the 100,000 extra social housing units we would have had if social housing been growing in line with total housing in recent years, a gap that is climbing by 4,000 homes a year. And, like the frilled-neck lizard, the $10 billion looks much bigger than it is. Labor could probably do what it has promised to do for $450 million per year. Instead, it says it would borrow $10 billion at low interest rates, invest the money for much higher returns, and use the proceeds to pay for the program. If the fund earns 4.5% more than the cost of borrowing it’ll get the $450 million per year. Rather than use the money to build the houses it will use the money to fund service payments to community housing providers who build them. As Labor points out, it’s a mechanism used by the current government, which has set up five such funds in addition to the <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/">Future Fund</a> used to fund public service pensions (of which more later). <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440171/original/file-20220111-13-1erhnaj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440171/original/file-20220111-13-1erhnaj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <a href="https://alp.org.au/policies/housing_future_fund" class="source">Extract from Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund election policy</a> Two of these funds, the Medical Research Future Fund and the Disability Care Australia Fund are actually bigger than the proposed Housing Fund. A problem with this structure designed to make the commitment look bigger than it is is that spending on social housing will depend on the returns of the fund. Allocating money from one source to spending on one particular purpose is called <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm75.pdf">hypothecation</a>, a word closely related to “<a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/429589/is-hypothecate-anything-to-do-in-origin-or-meaning-with-hypothetical/570700">hypothetical</a>”. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440181/original/file-20220111-19-6m0mfi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440181/original/file-20220111-19-6m0mfi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Medicare funding is independent of the levy. Dean Lewins/AAP The Medicare Levy of 2% of most taxable incomes is intended to be for funding Medicare, but funds only part of it. In contrast, there doesn’t appear to be any plan to guarantee payments for social housing if in any year the Social Housing Fund fails to make money. The bigger question is whether it makes sense for governments to use funds like the Future Fund to put money into income-generating investments in private companies (the Future Fund invests in <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1918/20200630_-_Top_100_largest_listed_equity_holdings.pdf">Apple, Microsoft and the Commonwealth Bank</a>) or to use any available funds to pay down government debt. The answer depends in part on whether the profits the funds earn are genuine or mere compensation for the risky business of investing in shares, which can always go wrong. My work on the so-called “equity premium”, the excess return for investing in shares, suggests that is <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15061616.pdf">genuine</a> and exceeds what’s needed to compensate for risk, making investment in the stock market an appealing option for governments in the absence of better opportunities. But the premium is not limitless, for two reasons. One is that if governments borrow enough and buy enough shares, we can reasonably expected the government’s cost of borrowing to rise and the rate of return on shares to fall, reducing the equity premium. The other is that if buying shares is pursued far enough, governments will become major, or even majority, shareholders in large businesses, effectively becoming owners. <h2>Future funds should invest in what governments do best</h2> Long experience suggests that while governments are quite good at running some types of businesses (especially those involving infrastructure and requiring large amounts of capital) they are not nearly as good at running others. Retailing comes to mind. If we accept that large debt-financed public investment can make sense, it follows that governments should own as much as 100% of some types of businesses (businesses such as Telstra come to mind) and little or none of others, such as shopping centres, which Australia’s government <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7139681/the-sale-of-belconnen-mall/">did indeed once own</a>. And that was generally the way Australia’s economy worked during the brief period of broadly shared-prosperity in the mid-20th century. Governments borrowed at low rates and invested in physical and social infrastructure, such as roads and communications services. The more funds there are like Labor’s proposed Housing Australia Future Fund the more likely it is we will get back there.<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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174406/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-quiggin-2084">John Quiggin</a>, Professor, School of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> 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/labors-proposed-10-billion-social-housing-fund-isnt-big-as-it-seems-but-it-could-work-174406">original article</a>.

Real Estate

The compelling case for a future fund for social housing

As more and more Australians are forced into private renting, including Australians who once would have owned homes or lived in social housing, more are living in <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ACOSS_Poverty-in-Australia-Report_Web-Final.pdf">poverty</a>, suffering <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/912-Money-in-retirement.pdf">financial stress</a> and becoming <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/06/who-is-homeless-in-australia/">homeless</a>. Social housing – where rents are typically capped at 25% of tenants’ incomes – used to make a big difference to the lives of many vulnerable Australians. Infrastructure Victoria has found that it makes a big difference to homelessness. Only 7% of renters in social housing subsequently become homeless, compared to 20% of private renters. But the stock of social housing – currently around 430,000 dwellings – has barely grown in 20 years, during a time Australia’s population has grown 33%. Given that most social housing tenants stay for more than five years, the stagnating stock of such housing means there are few openings available for people whose lives take a turn for the worse. We not only have fewer social houses per person, we also have vastly fewer openings for anyone looking. <h2>The fund would leverage cheap money</h2> Social housing is expensive. The capital cost per unit over and above what is recouped in rent amounts to about A$300,000. A new Grattan Institute paper released on Monday makes the case for a $20 billion federal government <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-place-to-call-home-its-time-for-a-social-housing-future-fund/">Social Housing Future Fund</a>, which would make regular capital grants to state governments and community housing providers. Future funds are not unusual. The <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-guardians">Future Fund Board of Guardians</a>, chaired by former Commonwealth Treasurer Peter Costello already manages $247.8 billion in assets across six funds addressing problems ranging from covering federal public servants’ superannuation entitlements to drought to disability care to medical research. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434062/original/file-20211126-27-iuq4w2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434062/original/file-20211126-27-iuq4w2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Peter Costello chairs the Future Fune Board of Guardians. Dean Lewins/AAP The endowment for the Social Housing Future Fund could be established by borrowing at today’s ultra-low interest rates. Some states, including Victoria, NSW, and Queensland already operate social housing investment funds, some financed by privatisations, others financed by government borrowing. The funds would be managed by the existing Future Fund Board of Guardians with only the returns above inflation used to provide capital grants for housing, maintaining the real value of the fund over time. Capital grants for new social housing units would be allocated by the existing <a href="https://www.nhfic.gov.au/">National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation</a> via competitive tenders after specifying dwelling size, location and subsidies for tenants. As is the case with the existing Future Fund, the funding would be off budget, with only each year’s profits or losses affecting the budget balance. The extra $20 billion in gross government debt would be small compared to the nearly <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-09/federal-budget-2020-debt-deficit-blowout-explained/12741472">$1 trillion</a> currently on issue, supported by about $500 billion a year in federal government revenues. <h2>How much could a $20 billion fund support?</h2> A $20 billion fund that achieved after-inflation returns of 4-5%, could over time provide $900 million each year – enough to deliver 3,000 extra social housing units a year in perpetuity, assuming capital grants of $300,000 per dwelling. Starting in 2022-23, the fund could build 24,000 social housing dwellings by 2030, and 54,000 by 2040. Future governments would be at liberty to top up the fund, helping expand the social housing share of the national housing stock. <hr /> <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434215/original/file-20211127-23-1xithw8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434215/original/file-20211127-23-1xithw8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Assuming $300,000 capital grant per dwelling, indexed to inflation. <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-place-to-call-home-its-time-for-a-social-housing-future-fund/" class="source">Source: Grattan analysis</a> <hr /> The <a href="https://alp.org.au/policies/housing_future_fund">Labor Party</a> has proposed something similar, in which funds are used for annual service payments to community housing providers rather than via upfront capital grants. The on-budget cost of our proposal would be modest: about $400 million a year, or less than 0.1% of federal government spending in the form of interest costs. Alternatively, part of the above-inflation return from the fund each year could be used to cover these costs, leaving $500 million available to fund the construction of nearly 1,700 new social housing units per year with no hit to the budget. The Commonwealth should require state governments to match its contributions. <h2>States could double the money</h2> Any state that did not agree to provide matching contributions would be ineligible for capital grants for social housing in that year, with the savings reinvested in the Future Fund and distributed across all states the following year. If matched state funding was forthcoming, the fund could provide 6,000 social homes a year – enough to stop social housing shrinking as a share of the total housing stock. This would double the build to 48,000 new homes by 2030, and 108,000 by 2040, boosting the current stock by one quarter. <hr /> <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434216/original/file-20211127-23-h5zalb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434216/original/file-20211127-23-h5zalb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Assuming $300,000 capital grant per dwelling, indexed to inflation. <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-place-to-call-home-its-time-for-a-social-housing-future-fund/" class="source">Source: Grattan analysis</a> By itself, a Social Housing Future Fund wouldn’t solve the housing crisis for low-income Australians. We would still need to boost rent assistance for people on income support and do more to boost housing supply to bring rents down. But it would give a much-needed helping hand to some of our most vulnerable, and keep social housing there for future generations should they need it.<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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172508/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644">Brendan Coates</a>, Program Director, Economic Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> 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/the-compelling-case-for-a-future-fund-for-social-housing-172508">original article</a>. Image: Shuttershock

Real Estate

Government to fund PCR tests required for domestic travel

Image: Getty Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has confirmed overnight that Australians will not be required to pay an upwards of $150 for a PCR Covid-19 test in order to travel domestically. Instead, PCR tests for interstate travel will be covered by the government under Medicare, funded jointly by the Commonwealth and the states, as has been the case for all walk-in testing clinics. The Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk welcomed Minister Hunt’s confirmation, and called it a “victory”. This comes after days of confusion and critique over Queensland’s entry requirements. “Minister Hunt says the charge for a PCR test was only when a certificate is required,” she said. “Queensland made it plain weeks ago that the text message most people receive after is a test is acceptable and I am pleased this victory has occurred and people can look forward to being reunited in time for Christmas – without additional cost – as my government has always planned.” It comes as Queensland prepares to re-open its border to those who are fully vaccinated travellers from 17th December, pending a negative PCR test. Previously, it was thought that travellers would need a certificate highlighting their negative result, which can only be obtained through a private pathology centre, as opposed to a free walk-in clinic, at a cost of roughly $150. The decision was criticised, as families claimed a trip across the border for Christmas would ultimately cost them hundreds of dollars. However, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said earlier that a text message showcasing a negative result would suffice in order to enter her state from COVID hotspots (currently NSW, Victoria and ACT). This announcement continued to raise questions and cause confusion, as NSW authorities earlier suggested that travellers requiring a PCR test result were not welcome to attend free walk-in clinics. However Minister Hunt has since stated that given Queensland will not require any further evidence apart from a text message result, PCR tests for travel can be performed for free at walk-in clinics. “A pathology test will only be charged for a patient when they are required to obtain an official certificate, rather than using the existing text message system that is in operation in every state and territory,” he said. Meanwhile, earlier this week, Minister Hunt had been in discussions with Queensland Health Minister Yvette D’Ath, urging Queensland to consider rapid antigen testing as an alternative to pricey PCR tests as sufficient for travel into Queensland, or to help foot the bill for PCR tests for travel purposes. “I am concerned about this in two regards,” Minister Hunt wrote. “Firstly, it appears Queensland has failed to give sufficient regard to the value of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in this context, and secondly, that Queensland is proposing not to assist Queenslanders with the provision of these tests.” Additionally, Minister Hunt questioned Queensland’s decision to continue to nominate NSW, Victoria and the ACT as a hotspot, and require a negative test for travel.

Domestic Travel

5 things you didn’t know you could spend your home care funding on

By Feros Care Is your Home Care funding supporting you exactly how you need it to? At Feros Care, we pride ourselves on delivering services that provide individualised support to ensure you’re getting the help you need, where you need it most. Designed to assist people to live in the comfort of their own homes for as long as possible, Feros Care offers a carefully curated collection of <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/home-care?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=home-care-package" target="_blank">Home Care</a> services – from the essential, to the personalised – to ensure you feel supported in every aspect of home life. While services like nursing and housework are some of the most commonly accessed among seniors, Feros Care offers so much more to ensure all your needs are met from the physical to the social and emotional. We work with our clients to determine their goals and tailor a plan to suit them. Your physical goals may require mobility aids, personal alarms, physiotherapy or massage; while your mental wellbeing might benefit from companionship, pet care, social outings or technology lessons. Let’s take a look at some of the things you didn’t know you could spend your home care funding on… 1. Home Modifications Technology can support you in making your life easier. At Feros Care, we send an expert to your home to find ways we can make it safer and more accessible so you can continue to live there with confidence and convenience. Feros Care’s <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/technology/smart-home-modifications?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=smart-home-modifications" target="_blank">Smart Home Modification</a> service assesses your living situation and builds a dynamic home environment customised to your lifestyle using emerging technologies you control with your voice. Imagine being able to turn your lights on, set medication reminders, open a door, call your family or find a recipe simply by talking! Home automation complements a range of other equipment and modifications including mobility aids to help with things like showering and gardening, an easy-pour jug to keep you safer in the kitchen, and much more! 2. Personal Alarms The peace of mind that comes with knowing help is always available at the touch of a button is invaluable. <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/technology/personal-and-emergency-response-alarms?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=personal-alarms" target="_blank">Personal alarms</a> can make you feel safe and secure whether you’re at home or out and about, giving you the confidence to remain independent. Feros Care has a large range of personal alarms so that we can customise a solution that suits your needs. Whether you live alone, are visually impaired, unsteady on your feet or just want some added security, talk to us today about including a personal alarm in your Home Care funding. 3. Technology Training Technology can complement our lives in a myriad of ways – from helping us stay connected with family and friends; to allowing us to shop online and manage our finances from our lounge rooms. While the thought of opening a laptop or navigating an iPad can be daunting, once you’ve learnt it’s liberating! Feros Care offers programs to teach seniors how to use devices to reach your technological goals through face-to-face training in your home, at your pace and based on your learning style. The <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/technology/lets-get-technical?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=lets-get-technical" target="_blank">Let’s Get Technical</a> program teaches everything from privacy and safety on the internet, to sharing photos and videos, searching for information, managing government services and accessing entertainment. 4. Online Community The only of its kind in Australia, Feros Care’s <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/virtual-social-centre/aged-care?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=virtual-social-centre" target="_blank">Virtual Social Centre</a> is an online group of like-minded people who want to remain connected, social and active within their community. The website offers real-time, interactive sessions on everything from cooking and gardening; to sewing and craft groups; yoga and Tai Chi; concerts, book clubs and foreign language classes. There is something for everyone and a ‘play back’ option if you missed the live session so you can re-watch your favourite programs again and again. 5. Pet Care At Feros Care, we understand that pets are cherished family members and we treat them with the love and respect they deserve. For this reason, we welcome pets into our aged care villages and provide you the support you need to care for them at home through your Home Care funding. We can help you to feed, walk and bathe your furry friend (or scaly friend – if that’s what you prefer!), and we’ll always greet them with a warm welcome. Would you like to learn more about services to live more independently in your own home? Feros Care provides a wide range of services, including home maintenance, housework, gardening and transport. We can also advise whether you may be eligible for government funding to assist with funding your helpers. Call Feros Care on 1300 763 583 or visit <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/home-care?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=home-care-package" target="_blank">feroscare.com.au/home-care</a> This is a sponsored article produced in partnership with <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.feroscare.com.au/home-care?utm_source=over%20sixty&utm_medium=article-3&utm_campaign=HOMECARE-ALWAYSON-2021&utm_content=home-care-package" target="_blank">Feros Care</a>.

Caring

Dad spends daughter’s wedding fund on car and holiday

After posting about his situation on <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/mhgoq5/aita_for_spending_my_daughters_wedding_fund_on_a/" target="_blank">Reddit</a>, a father has been questioning whether it was wrong of him to spend the $35,000 (AUD $45,045) he had saved for his daughter’s wedding on gifts for himself instead. In the post, he explained his daughter’s wedding had been postponed for more than a year, ending with her choosing to elope rather than going through with the ceremony. Having saved the cash for the wedding fund, the man said he was ‘thrilled’ that his daughter was still able to get married, but also that he could ‘put [the money] to other use’. He revealed that he used the money to treat himself to a new car and take his wife on a holiday. ‘I didn’t think this was controversial,’ the man said. But, his decision has caused major controversy. Just weeks after the daughter had eloped, she asked whether she could dip into the fund of savings to put a down payment on a property. After learning that he had spent the cash, his daughter and ex-wife called him out as ‘selfish’. Her dad defended himself, saying, ‘I never told her it was a wedding or whatever she wanted fund, so I didn’t think I did anything wrong.’ But he’s questioning whether his opinion was biased. ‘I’m a blue collar guy. She knew that I had money put aside for her wedding,’ he added. ‘I never told her it was a fund for her to use on whatever. I paid for her [university] and planned on paying for her wedding but beyond that didn’t plan on paying her way through life.’ The Reddit post received over 1,000 comments, many sided with him and supported his decision to spend the money he’d earned on himself. ‘[This man] paid for his daughter’s entire [university] tuition and living expenses so she’s starting out in life with zero debt,’ one user replied. ‘Isn’t that gift enough?’ Another said, ‘[Your] daughter is allowed to be disappointed, but not an ungrateful, entitled brat.’ Offering a more neutral view, a third commenter said, ‘At the end of the day, it is your money and adult children are not owed houses, cars or weddings by their parents’, claiming they ‘personally’ would have ‘at least given her some of the money as a wedding present.’

Money & Banking

AusPost offers bizarre excuses for CEO's overspending

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate and her personal office have spent a shocking $275,000 on corporate credit cards since her appointment. There are now demands for a line-by-line disclosure on the spending from Parliament. The spending, which the bulk of it is "organisational spending" could be the key to Holgate holding onto her role of CEO, regardless of whether or not the spending was legitimate under Australia Post policies. Insiders say that the terms of inquiry were established with references to her "personal expenses" that "sets up" Holgate and asks that a judgement be made over Aus Post executives adhering to "high standards regarding the expenditure of money". Holgate has a personal corporate credit card for her own use that racked up a surprisingly low $88,100 since she was appointed to her role as CEO three years ago. However, it's the second relatively new card that's been used for $287,000 in this financial year alone that has caught the attention of the Labor government. Australia Post has offered odd excuses as to why a line-by-line breakdown of spending can't be provided, including the former "work from home" requirements in Melbourne. “Australia Post’s Melbourne Headquarters have been closed for several months, due to the COVID-19 lockdown in metropolitan Melbourne. As a result, Melbourne office staff have been working remotely and access to some records has been restricted,’’ Australia Post said. Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/australia-posts-bizarre-excuse-for-refusing-to-disclose-corporate-credit-card-spending/news-story/bae8362ceba28161aece0718f4cfe06a" target="_blank">news.com.au</a> that Australia Post’s explanation as to why it won’t provide an itemised list of spending does not make sense. “They should furnish the Senate with the credit card statements which I had already requested, but I was told that they couldn’t provide those statements because employees were working from home,’’ Senator Kitching said. After the previous chairman of Australia Post, John Stanhope, left the organisation in 2019, the "Office of teh CEO" took responsibility for any previous charges and the card that racked up the $287,000 bill was used to purchase flowers, catering, car hire as well as being used for travel expenses. “The Group Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director has not been issued with a travel charge card,’’ Australia Post said. “However, there is one credit card in the name of the ‘Office of the CEO’ used to pay for various organisational expenditure, including travel expenses. Organisational expenditure paid with this credit card totalled $287,063.44 for the 2019/20 financial year. “The credit card was used for a wide range of organisational expenditure, including in relation to the Group Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director, the Board Chair, the Executive Team, the Office of the CEO, and the Extended Leadership Team.” So far, Australia Post is refusing to provide a breakdown of expenses, saying it would involve an "unreasonable diversion of resources". “There is one credit card in the name of the Group Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director,’’ Australia Post said. “An itemised breakdown of the charges over this period (almost three years) would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.” A report will be provided to the Morrison Government within four weeks of the investigation commencing. </div> </div> </div>

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

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

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

Couple tackle the Nullabor to raise funds for polio charity

Running low on your rainy day fund?

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

Labor’s proposed $10 billion social housing fund isn’t big as it seems, but it could work

The compelling case for a future fund for social housing

Government to fund PCR tests required for domestic travel

5 things you didn’t know you could spend your home care funding on

Dad spends daughter’s wedding fund on car and holiday

AusPost offers bizarre excuses for CEO's overspending

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

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

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

Couple tackle the Nullabor to raise funds for polio charity

Running low on your rainy day fund?

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

Labor’s proposed $10 billion social housing fund isn’t big as it seems, but it could work

The compelling case for a future fund for social housing

Government to fund PCR tests required for domestic travel

5 things you didn’t know you could spend your home care funding on

Dad spends daughter’s wedding fund on car and holiday

AusPost offers bizarre excuses for CEO's overspending

Our Partners

Join Over60