Mum who worked as nurse for 36 years loses $460,000 in retirement fund collapse: 'The superannuation system is not safe'
Kathryn Shannon, from Perth, is now reconsidering her well-earned retirement after investing her life savings in the Simple Super Fund, via her self-managed super fund.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission in June sought a Federal Court order to appoint receivers to its parent company Australian Fiduciaries Limited.
Now, 600 Australians are in limbo, having invested $160million in managed investment schemes offered by Australian Fiduciaries since February 2020, mainly through self-managed superannuation funds.
Ms Shannon, who doesn't own her own home, had voluntarily topped up her super, and only took time out of work to give birth to her two children.
'I transferred all of my funds, totalling over $460,000 and representing nearly all my life savings as I don't own my own home,' she said.
'I don't know how this could have happened. I never imagined I would face any difficulty with anything as simple as superannuation is supposed to be.
'I feel ripped off and the superannuation system is not safe.'
She said the collapse of her super fund was particularly bad for someone nearing retirement age, such as herself.
'I now have doubt and fear about what my future will look like,' she said.
'Due to my age, the likelihood of earning enough to retire now is not possible.
'I am overwhelmed that I may have lost all of my super funds.
'How could this happen and why did monitoring not pick this up earlier?
'There are so many unanswered questions.'
Australian Fiduciaries had stopped distributing units in its schemes in September 2023.
This was two months after Simple Super Fund had its Australian business number cancelled, ending its status as a tax office-regulated self-managed superannuation fund.
ASIC is investigating Australian Fiduciaries for inadequately managing conflicts of interest and for deceptively convincing investors to park their money with its schemes.
Terry van der Velde and Matthew Hudson from SV Partners were last month appointed as voluntary administrators.
Ms Shannon filed a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority in July and fears she will be left penniless without federal government intervention.
'I fear that without the intervention of the federal government, neither I nor any of the other 600 or so 'retail investors' who entrusted their superannuation to AFL will get their money,' she said.
Her uncertainty is occurring as 6,000 Australians grapple with losing their super-managed super funds that had been invested in the collapsed First Guardian Master Fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Bruce Lehrmann has become a ‘national joke' and can't afford barrister for defamation appeal, his lawyer says
Bruce Lehrmann can't afford a barrister to represent him in an appeal against his lost defamation case and deserves substantial damages because he is 'a national joke', the federal court has heard. Lehrmann is appealing Justice Michael Lee's April 2024 judgement which found the former Liberal staffer was not defamed by Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10 when The Project broadcast an interview with Brittany Higgins in 2021 in which she alleged she was raped in Parliament House. Opening the three-day appeal hearing, Lehrmann's lawyer, Zali Burrows, apologised to the full court of the federal court, justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham, for her client's failure to appoint an experienced barrister. Introducing her argument for substantial damages, should the court uphold any of the grounds for appeal, Burrows said her client was vilified in the media and social media. 'He's pretty much become the national joke ... [and] Australia's most hated man,' Burrows said. Burrows said Lehrmann 'really wanted' Sydney barrister Guy Reynolds, SC, but 'couldn't afford' him so she would appear instead, and Lehrmann would sit beside her. 'I hope you don't mind Mr Lehrmann joining me at the bar table,' she said. Burrowes is a criminal defence lawyer and not an experienced barrister, a fact she pointed out to the bench when she said she was up against top silks Matt Collins KC, for Ten, and Sue Chrysanthou SC, for Wilkinson. Justice Wigney assured Burrows she was well qualified, but did instruct her on some of the rules of the court as she presented her submissions. He reminded her she didn't need to read out passages and should reference them instead. 'Sorry, What? What? What is the relevance of this if you don't mind me asking?' Wigney said in response to Burrows raising the Logies speech given by Wilkinson when she won an award for the interview with Higgins. When Burrows characterised Lee's judgement as one which found a 'non-violent rape' had occurred, Colvin said: 'I'm not sure he found a non-violent rape, and I'm not sure that's a concept I understand.' Burrows was repeatedly questioned by the justices about her four grounds of appeal. On the first of these grounds - that Lehrmann was denied procedural fairness and natural justice – Colvin said 'I don't understand the logic of this submission'. Lehrmann's case is that he was denied procedural fairness because Lee's findings about the alleged rape differed from the one alleged by Ten and Wilkinson. Burrows said Lehrmann was not given a chance to respond to that version of the rape. Collins, for Ten, told the court Lehrmann's grounds of appeal are 'misconceived' and 'a distraction, in our respectful submission'. 'Because, at the end of the day, this was a defamation case, not a rape case,' Collins said. 'Sexual intercourse with someone without consent, in circumstances where you know they're drunk, in our submission was satisfied as the ordinary definition of the way we say the ordinary person would interpret the word rape.' 'Is it really plausible in 2021 that a person in Mr Lehrmann's position did not at any time turn his mind to the question of consent, having regard to the way in which social mores towards sexual relations between the genders have evolved?' Burrows declined to detail all her grounds of appeal, saying she would prefer to address them in reply. Wigney warned her that this was unconventional and she could not introduce anything new in reply. Collins said it was an 'astonishing submission' that Lehrmann's evidence might have been different if he had been given the chance to respond to questions about a 'non-violent rape'. 'Well that's, with respect, an astonishing submission, and it could only mean that had the pleading alleged, a sexual assault in which consent was in question, he would have conceded to having had sexual intercourse with her, but argued that he thought he had her consent, or he did have her consent. That was never the way he ran his case,' he said. The hearing continues. Lehrmann was charged with sexual intercourse without consent in 2021, and at his criminal trial in 2022 pleaded not guilty, denying that any sexual activity had occurred. After his criminal trial was aborted in December 2022, prosecutors dropped charges against Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Higgins, saying a retrial would pose an 'unacceptable risk' to her health. Lehrmann has maintained his innocence.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Bombshell admission from high profile doctor who killed a young Uber passenger while drunk behind the wheel of his luxury Jaguar
An obstetrician who allegedly crashed his high-powered car at 130km/h while almost four times over the legal alcohol limit has pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Perth obstetrician Rhys Henry Stone Bellinge, 45, on Wednesday admitted the manslaughter of Elizabeth Pearce on February 15. The 24-year-old was an Uber passenger in a Honda Jazz hatchback struck by Bellinge's blue Jaguar sedan in Perth's leafy riverside suburb of Dalkeith. The father of two also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm while under the influence of alcohol over the injuries to Muhammad Usman. The 25-year-old Uber driver suffered two broken legs and arm injuries in the collision. Bellinge, who has reportedly struggled in custody while on remand, appeared via video link from Casuarina maximum-security prison. Wearing a prison-issued green tracksuit, Bellinge was sullen as he confirmed he understood the charges before entering a guilty plea to each charge in Stirling Gardens Magistrates Court. A charge of driving under the influence of alcohol was discontinued by the court at the prosecution's request. The Uber was struck by Bellinge's blue Jaguar sedan in the leafy riverside suburb of Dalkeith in February. Pictured is the crash scene Bellinge's wealthy father, Bruce Bellinge, was in the court to hear his son's pleas. The court was previously told Bellinge had been drinking while watching football on television at his father's home before he climbed into his high-powered car and attempted to drive home about 10pm. Dashcam footage showed Bellinge's car reached a speed of about 130km/h before the driver lost control, crossed to the wrong side of the road, and collided with the Honda. Ms Pearce later died in hospital from her injuries. Bellinge allegedly had a blood alcohol reading of 0.183 and was recorded apologising after the crash at the scene. He suffered spinal injuries in the incident and had been experiencing 'mental upset' following his recent marriage breakdown. Other dashcam footage previously played to the court showed Bellinge driving at speeds above 100km/h in a 40km zone days before the crash that killed Ms Pearce. Bellinge also allegedly recorded yelling vitriolic profanities about his estranged wife on the night of the crash and in another recording. He was denied bail during a hospital bed court hearing in the weeks after Ms Pearce was killed and could be heard crying and sobbing over an audio link.
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anthony Albanese's huge workplace changes to come into force within days
More than 5.1million Aussies who work for a small business will soon have the right to ignore calls and texts from their bosses after hours. The second stage of 'right to disconnect' laws comes into effect next Monday, exactly one year after the Albanese government enforced the rule for companies with more than 15 employees. The controversial laws give employees the right to refuse to monitor, read, or reply to contact outside their working hours, unless doing so is unreasonable. This includes contact from an employer, colleagues and third parties such as clients and suppliers. But the laws don't make it unlawful for an employer to contact an employee outside working hours. 'Instead, they give employees a right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to the contact, unless doing so is unreasonable,' the Fair Work Ombudsman website states. Whether or not a refusal is unreasonable will depend on the circumstances. Factors could include the nature of the worker's role and level of responsibility, their personal circumstances and extra pay, or compensation received for working additional hours or being available after hours. Ahead of the major change, the NSW Small Business Commissioner has urged employers and employees from the outset to have a conversation about what out-of-hours contact might mean. 'They should set expectations about contact and responding to contact when either party is not working,' the website states. However, many questions remain, including what is considered unreasonable. There isn't any advice in the legislation, which encourages businesses to consider whether employees are being paid for this time after-hours or if the request is urgent. Those who don't comply with the laws have been threatened with hefty fines of up to $18,780 for individuals and $93,900 for companies per breach. However, no cases involving large companies have yet made it to court in the first year of legislation. The laws have reignited online debate among employees and small business operators. 'I'm a manager and constantly get calls and texts after hours, weekends and holidays. Staff wanting to swap shifts, calling in sick, and security call-outs,' one woman posted online. 'Wow, I'm gonna be getting paid 24/7. Shouldn't this work both ways? Staff should respect their bosses' time off also.' A worker added: 'Your boss is only your boss during work hours, after work hours he's just another person & I decide if I answer their calls or not.' Workers on call 24-7 were concerned about the potential impact the laws could have on their role. 'I work a job doing supermarket refrigeration service, does this mean I can ignore emergency breakdowns, even though I'm on call 24/7?' one wrote. 'Or can I ignore texts telling me which job I will be at next morning? Or what about important information about jobs I need to pass onto my boss? Can I just not do that because it's out of hours?' However, others had no problems with being contacted after hours by their bosses. 'I work for a small company and sometimes it just happens. If you have a respectful relationship with your management it shouldn't be an issue from time to time,' one woman commented.
