Govt Actuary not prepared to 'take part in a sham'

The Government Actuary has drawn a line in the sand over the definition of superannuation funds.

Tuesday, September 19th 2000, 7:16AM

The Government Actuary, Geoff Rashbrooke, has expressed frustration at his inability to influence superannuation policy because of the way Ministry of Economic Development is structured, and he is prepared to put his job on the line over a key issue.

Currently the ministry (which the Government Actuary is part of) is split into operational and policy divisions. Since the actuary is considered to be an operational area, it has no influence over policy.

This situation is frustrating as the actuary sees many of the issues that are facing superannuation schemes, particularly employer sponsored ones, yet he can't do anything to fix them.

Rashbrooke also says he is not able to talk directly to Commerce Minister Paul Swain.

One policy he is keen to advance, and has in fact staked his colours to the mast on, is the definition of what is a superannuation fund.

Under the Superannuation Schemes Act a fund has to be "principally for the purpose of providing retirement benefits."

Earlier this year the Government Actuary produced a discussion paper addressing the interpretation of this phrase and it essentially promoted the line that the large majority of payouts (80-90%) from a super fund had to be for retirement purposes rather than for in-service benefits.

The superannuation fund industry has strongly opposed this view and been highly critical of the office for trying to "reinterpret" the law.

The Government Actuary has backed off its proposition since the infamous discussion paper, Newsletter 47, was distributed.

However, Rashbrooke told the Association of Superannuation Funds Conference recently that he sticks by the broad thrust of his interpretation. His commitment is so strong he is prepared to put his job on the line.

He says the intent of the law is quite clear. A superannuation scheme is for retirement purposes, if it's being used for some other purpose it should be called something else.

"I'm not happy trying to enforce a piece of legislation which doesn't make any sense."

His message is simple: "Find another Government Actuary. I'm not prepared to take part in a sham."