Toast Welcome to Hawthorn : Ian Silk

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.


I am pro pokies, so this is a good news story for me.

Every non-ethical fund would have exposure to vice industries. A superannuation trustee has an obligation to produce returns for its members - so long as there isn’t overweight positions being held in gambling companies in funds that are being pitched to the market as ethical funds then you’re absolutey going to have exposure to gambling industries as well as industries that have a carbon footprint. That’s why you can choose to use ethical funds.

It’s a little different when you run a footy club and have far more control over the running of the finances. Of course the CEO of a superannuation fund could make an investment mandate (happened at the old First State Super because they had so many members in the health sector they decided to divest entirely from any exposure to tobacco stocks) but divesting fully from gambling stocks wouldn’t be in the broader interest of AustralianSuper’s many members so why would he do it?

There is more pressure on footy clubs to divest from gambling. Silk understands this, wants us to divest but has been forthright in saying it will be a phased withdrawal because he doesn’t want to financially damage the club.

So what is Roddan’s point? Comparing AustralianSuper’s stance on poker machines to the Hawthorn Football Club’s and Silk’s position on poker machine investment as CEO of the largest superannuation company in the country and as potential president of a football club is just bizarrely stupid.

That story is an ideologically driven hit piece by someone who hasn’t a single clue how superannuation works.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top