Commenting on the story: SA public servants set to get freedom of super choice
I’m a salaried paediatrician at a public hospital, and a member of Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA). I urge the SA Government to progress this bill ASAP.
Apart from having personal choice of where my retirement savings go, I wish my money to be invested in both an ethical and environmentally responsible manner.
Currently I must put my money with Super SA, and their “Socially Responsible” option is – can you believe it – actually outsourced by Funds SA to AMP Capital, whose choice of investments that I regard as good for society and the environment is poor, as is their recent corporate behaviour.
I wish Super SA, which is a great organisation otherwise, can openly compete with other funds and develop their own Environmentally Responsible option which is free of investment in fossil fuel pollution and biased towards the transition to renewable energy and other mitigations against global warming.
If they can’t or won’t, I want the choice to move my savings to a fund that will.
Our Liberal government should be right behind this free-market amendment. – Dr David Everett
What rubbish. No one in the public service wants an outside choice. I am fearful this is just a movement that will pull SuperSA out and workers will have to find a fund themselves.
Instead of closing Super services, the government needs to have a “holding super service”.
I know plenty of people who work in short term types of employment, and even though their employer pays into a super fund for them it’s another one at the next job, and another one, then a period of unemployment etc, and in the end when they are ready to retire there will be nothing, or little scraps of their super dotted around and no real fund at all.
If they had a system that as soon as you no longer employed, it goes into the “holding super fund” run by a government body, then when you work it gets put into your new fund and so on.
When you retire there will be one fund to go to (the last one you are in) and it will all be there. Of course, if the person has a fund that they really like, they should be able to use it.
The workplace should be made to make the contribution there, or if this is too difficult maybe it’s another job the government ‘holding super’ could control? – Lynette Finnigan
Commenting on the story: Small crowd to be allowed at Saturday’s Showdown
This is what you get when an elected Government hands over control to an unelected Police Commissioner. The very same Commissioner who meekly back downed to protestors of a death in the US, non COVID-19 spaced.
Marshall must have a different understanding of the word significant. The Queensland Government have put us to shame.
The city has to get back some vibrancy and this is not how you do it. But, of course, we are “all in this together”? – John Lewis
My biggest concern with 2,000 being allowed into the oval is this is a Port Adelaide home ground, Port should have the majority of people allowed to attend.
The other problem is being a paid up A member with reserved seats, we don’t have the right to attend, let alone sitting in our reserved seats. – Elaine Niedorfer
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
Help our journalists uncover the facts
In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.