New Act by the Parliament of South Australia Required

To allow the Trust Estate of the trust declared on the 23 December 1913 in the State of South Australia to be transferred to another Trust Estate of a trust administered by a subsidiary of the National Australia Bank will require an enactment of the Parliament of South Australia to amend Regulation 52 to all the Trust Estate to be transferred.

The fund was originally know as The Provident and Guarantee Fund and was later known as the Elders IXL Superannuation Fund and is now known as the AusBev Superannuation Fund.

A precedent has been set by the Elder Smith and Co Limited Provident Funds Act 1963 (SA) and the Elder’s Trustee and Executor Company Provident Funds Act 1971 (SA).

National Australia Bank on Notice

Banks have a special duty of care when it comes to Trust Accounts operated by the bank since their are two owners of the funds in these accounts – the Trustee and the Beneficiaries.

On 22 October 2012 a letter was sent to the Proper Office of the National Australia Bank placing the the bank on notice that parties who may not be properly authorised by the Trust Deed of a Government Regulated Superannuation Fund were misapplying funds from one or more Trust Accounts operated by the bank.

The National Australia Bank is now required to make inquiries that an honest and reasonable banker would make to ensure the bona fides of the party claiming to be authorised to be the Trustee of these accounts.

The National Australia Bank should not release any moneys from these Trust Accounts until the bank has received a reply from the purported Trustee that would be acceptable to an honest and reasonable banker.

Attempts to Ban Australian Guardians



Australian Guardians recently completed Australia’s first Superannuation Industry Disclosure Compliance Test. Only 70% of Trustees complied with a condition of their RSE Licence issued by the Prudential Regulator – APRA (and that was including funds who responded after the statutory time period of 30 days).

So 30% of Trustees are now on the Australian GuardiansRed Flag” list requiring further investigation.

So what has been the response from the “RegulatorsASIC and APRA?

Have ASIC and APRA taken any action to ensure that the Trustees of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds comply with their statutory disclosure obligations and the conditions of their RSE Licences?

Have ASIC and APRA applauded the mission of Australian Guardians to educate members of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds as to their legal rights and their right to have the Trustee of their Fund account for the Trustees administration of the fund and to provide copies of the legal documents that would confirm whether or not the Trustee had paid the Member’s lawful superannuation entitlement?

Now both ASIC and APRA are attempting to block Australian Guardians from obtaining access to Fund Documents by alternative means by way of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Both ASIC and APRA have lodged submissions with the Freedom of Information Commissioner seeking to have the founder of Australian Guardians declared a vexatious applicant and therefore denied the right to seek information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982!

So instead of taking action to protect some of the 12 Million unique Members who might be Members of Funds with Trustees on the “Red Flag” list both APRA and ASIC have conspired to “Shoot the Messenger“, hoping that the cover-up of fraud in the $ 1 Trillion Superannuation System can continue with the Public Servant lawyers looking after their mates who have gained control of Billions of Dollars of “other peoples money“.

The days of bluffing the Responsible Minister in “Yes Minister” fashion by Public Servants with their own secure taxpayer funded superannuation are at immanent risk so all efforts to protect the cover-up must now be implemented.

However as Tom Petri observed:

“It is not the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble. It is the attempted cover-up

Australian Guardians – Protecting your wealth when no one else will®

Favourite Frauds

Australian Guardians has extensive files of the types of frauds that Members should be aware of to safeguard their own superannuation entitlements.

There are three types of superannuation funds:

  • final salary Defined Benefit Funds
  • money purchase Defined Contribution Funds, and
  • Hybrid Funds that are a combination of the above two.

Different frauds can be applied by dishonest Trustees depending on the type of Fund that the Trustee administers.

The following tabs provide details of the ways that dishonest Trustees and their assistants use to steal your hard earned money.

If you join Australian Guardians you will be provided with the tools that you will need to assist in determining if you have been a victim of one or more of these frauds.

Australian Guardians has case studies in which members were victims of three separate frauds resulting in individual claims that run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Australian Guardians – Protecting your wealth when no one else will.

Dossier D2011/112

Dossier Reference: D2011/112

Related case:D2010/324

Agency: Commonwealth Ombudsman

Legal Rights

When dealing with Government agencies all members of the Public have a right to be afforded natural justice (procedural fairness) by decision makers of that agency.

One of the limbs of natural justice is the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

If a decision maker makes a decision where the principles of natural justice have been contravened that decision is void.


This what the Commonwealth Ombudsman claims:

“The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the actions and decisions of Australian Government agencies to see if they are wrong, unjust, unlawful, discriminatory or just plain unfair”

Now the operative word here is “can”. There is no compulsion for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the actions and decisions of Australian Governments agencies.

In the majority of cases the Ombudsman decides not to investigate complaints. This is not well advertised for obvious reasons.

However under Section 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 if the Ombudsman does not “for any reason” investigate a compliant, the Ombudsman must inform the complainant. Furthermore as a matter of procedural fairness the complainant has the right of an internal review by another Officer of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Under the Ombudsman’s Service Charter the Ombudsman promises to confirm receipt of a Complaint (Approach) within seven working days of receiving the Approach.

In case D2010/324 a senior Officer of ASIC lied to the Responsible Minister about the scope and operation of Section 1017C(5) and Regulation 7.9.45 of the Corporations Act 2001.

The ASIC Officer was covering up the practice of using a Government Regulated Superannuation Fund as a means of paying secret “Golden Handshake” payments to failed CEOs that would be hidden from the financial media

When the Member complained to the Responsible Minister about the misconduct of this Officer of ASIC, the Responsible Minister advised the member to lodge a Complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Member followed the Minister’s advice.

The Member lodged a Complaint  (Approach) with the Commonwealth Ombudsman on 14 October 2011.

The Member was expecting a confirmation that the Ombudsman had received the Approach in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Service Charter.

This confirmation never came.

Perhaps the Complaint had been lost in the post?

The Member lodged a request for this document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

The response confirmed that the Ombudsman received this Approach on 20 October 2011 and the document was given a file number 183566.

But no acknowledgement was sent confirming the receipt of this Approach.

No reason was provided as required by Section 12 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 as to why the Ombudsman had decided not to investigate why a senior ASIC Officer lied to the Responsible Minister.

No opportunity for an internal review was provided.

Instead this Approach was filed in the waste paper bin by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Neither the Minister who was lied to nor the Minster responsible for the Commonwealth Ombudsman are concerned about the practice of the Commonwealth Ombudsman filing difficult complaints in the waste paper bin.

So how safe do you think your superannuation is when lies and cover-ups are standard operating procedure in the regulation of your superannuation Trustee?

Australian Guardians – Protecting your wealth when no one else will

Welcome to Australian Guardians

Welcome to Australian Guardians. Find out more about Australian Guardians on the following pages. Australian Guardians mission is to ensure that you receive your lawful superannuation entitlement and that none of this is stolen by fraudulent Trustees.

Please contact Australian Guardians to find out how you can become a Member. Membership is free.