The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Investment and Financial Services Association, Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and Corporate Superannuation Association all aired their rejection of Cooper's proposed architectural mode, declaring further revision of the recommendations are needed.
In December 2009, the Cooper review recommended a choice architecture model as part of phase one of its examination of Australia's superannuation system.
So incensed are they by the recommendations, the associations joined forces to deliver Cooper their rejection of the model.
"We believe the proposed model does not focus on the key issues of making the system more efficient, but seeks to fundamentally alter an existing structure that has served members well," a joint statement said.
Advice association the FPA has also urged the Cooper review panel to provide further information and evidence to support its recommendations regarding its proposed choice architecture.
FPA chief Jo-Anne Bloch said phase one of the report raised many questions.
"The FPA supports the concepts of greater protection and simplicity for consumers but is concerned that a narrowly defined default superannuation structure would further remove decision making and choice from consumers," Bloch said.
"Similar products such as Australia's retirement savings accounts and stakeholder pensions in the United Kingdom have failed because the government intervened in product design in an attempt to reduce costs, rather than let the market determine how it should respond to consumer needs."
In its submission to phase three of the Cooper review, the FPA argued the need to standardise fee disclosure and terms and improve efficiencies such as transfer protocols and industry standards.
It also argued in support of the significance of self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF) in the provision of retirement planning for Australians.
"SMSFs are popular and successful because of the flexibility and control they offer consumers. Further intervention would threaten the success of this superannuation option," Bloch said.
"The current arrangements for SMSF regulation and regulatory oversight are generally working well, as is the trust model for SMSFs and the division of regulatory responsibilities between the ATO and APRA.
"However, there are a few areas where greater regulatory oversight would create a more balanced system."
The choice architecture model proposed universal and choice investment options for people depending on their level of engagement with superannuation.
The new model would have to establish separate fund structures to cater for the members categorised as either universal or choice, the four groups said.
The model also failed to recognise that level of engagement was also a factor of age and stage of life, they said.
The groups also had "serious industry misgivings" about the lifecycle investment strategy proposed by the review.
The vigour and determination of the industry associations to stand firm brings hope that industry concerns are heard.
Do you believe the Cooper review will deliver what the industry needs?
