If we wish to see whether a university or a uni lecturer is serious about stopping air, water and land pollution a useful question is: “Where do you put your superannuation contributions each pay?”
The answer is hidden but the universities know where to find it because it’s they who hide it. They shepherd their staff towards a super fund which is a major investor in coal, gas and oil.
Universities in Australia automatically direct staff salary superannuation into one super business, UniSuper.
From my experience with them, unis don’t alert a new employee that they have a lawful right to choose to tell the university payroll folk where to send their superannuation.
And the unis don’t tell new employees super payments will automatically be sent to UniSuper.
Nor do universities account in their ‘sustainability’ programs for their default investment bias or for supporting UniSuper.
If the default is to send the lecturer’s money to UniSuper, as seems usual, the new employee has to then take their own action to direct the super to be paid to a fund of their own choice.
Why is the destination of super money an issue?
The key problem is the business model of UniSuper.
• UniSuper invests superannuation payments from university lecturers and staff into coal, gas, oil and other Earth-killing polluting industries
UniSuper has no environmental or ethical investment policy. It invests in oil, gas, coal and in companies with a record of using child labour.
• UniSuper puts Australian uni lecturer super into oil, coal, gas - including lecturers teaching sustainability - unless a lecturer otherwise directs
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Unisuper investments include:
“$7.65 billion in oil and gas, including Atmos Energy Corp, Imperial Oil Limited, Paz Oil Company, Santos, and $170 million in thermal coal including Dominion Energy, FirstEnergy, Tokyo Electric Power Companies.”
It says other Australian super funds have similar values-free investments, such as:
“Hostplus: 26 oil and gas companies including Engie Brasil Energia, Diamondback Energy, Beach Energy, Cooper Energy, APA, BHP Billiton and 8 coal companies including Whitehaven Coal, New Hope, Idemitsu Kosan.
AustralianSuper: 3 coal companies - Whitehaven, South32, New Hope - and 8 oil and as companies including Sundance Energy, Paringa Resources, Cooper Energy, APA Group.
HESTA: Coal Indian and 12 oil and gas companies including Calima Energy, Oil Search, Viva Energy, Santos, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, China Gas Holdins.”
When asked by the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age about its investments, the papers reported that:
“Unisuper, a $85 billion fund that has more than 450,000 members largely from the university and research community, said it had no plans to divest its $170 million investment in 14 thermal coal companies nor the $7.82 billion it had spread across 13 gas, oil and petrol companies, including Santos, Woodside Petroleum and Australian Oil and Gas.
AustralianSuper, a $170 billion behemoth, has investments in at least three coal miners – Whitehaven Coal, BHP spin-off South32 and New Hope, which has two open cut coal mines in South East Queensland, according to disclosures. It also has money in eight oil and gas companies including China Gas and China Petroleum and Chemical Corp, whose parent company has been prosecuted for chronic pollution cases and multiple deadly pipeline”
The Conversation newspaper, published and funded by universities, has an editorial charter which focuses on what its journalists are paid and where their money comes from and says of itself:
“We are transparent, with every author disclosing his or her expertise, funding, and conflicts of interest.”
It publishes a conflict of interest declaration for each writer with the article they’ve written.
But the declaration and scope of the paper avoids any mention of UniSuper. It’s limited to the question whether the uni author has received research grants or other income that may amount to a ‘conflict of interest”. An example of a typical declaration reads like this:
“X has received research grants from various sources, including the Australian government through the [insert revered body’s name]. He has no conflicts of interest with regard to this article.”
Or,
“Y does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.”
Australia’s superannuation industry has more money than the economy.
Only recently has the extent of the Australian super industry, its wealth and the character of its investments been scrutinised, with the independent financial journalist Michael West writing this year:
“The superannuation sector entered 2020 a $3 trillion behemoth, approximately 150% larger than the entire Australian economy. Some $120 billion flowed in from in member contributions during 2019, mainly from the mandatory 9.5% super guarantee made on behalf of the vast majority of employees.”
For The Conversation, it’s probable the typical disclosure statement is false and misleading. A typical disclosure uses wording along these lines:
“ X does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment."
The more accurate disclosure would say whether or not the author invests in oil, gas and coal exploitation and is responsible for the pollution from it.
Australian universities set up their payroll for academics so as to direct the superannuation money to Unisuper of which the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have written:
“Unisuper, a $85 billion fund that has more than 450,000 members largely from the university and research community, said it had no plans to divest its $170 million investment in 14 thermal coal companies nor the $7.82 billion it had spread across 13 gas, oil and petrol companies, including Santos, Woodside Petroleum and Australian Oil and Gas."
The universities don’t let new employees know this default in typical payment paperwork, don’t inform new and existing employees they have a legal right to direct their super wherever they wish. (Other issues arise from this practice but they’re not raised here.)
I wonder if you agree that this wording in The Conversation’s charter may not be accurate:
“We are transparent, with every author disclosing his or her expertise, funding, and conflicts of interest.”
How, for example, can authors critical of the carbon pollution and policies which cause it at the same time put their money into those industries and then, when writing for The Conversation, not disclose that?
Perhaps a more accurate disclosure would be along these lines:
"The author does [or does] not invest in oil, coal or gas industries."
Words matter, don’t you think?