NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION – Bridget Ndhlovu
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
To:
Bridget Ndhlovu
GREENBANK QLD 4124
I, Emma Rosenzweig, a delegate of the Commissioner of Taxation, give you notice as required by subsection 126A(6) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA), that I have disqualified you under subsection 126A(1) of the SISA.
I have disqualified you as I am satisfied that you have contravened the SISA on one or more occasions and the seriousness of the contraventions provides grounds for disqualifying you.
The disqualification takes effect on the day on which it is made.
Dated: 27 February 2023
Emma Rosenzweig
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Per Alison Webster
Note 1:
Under subsection 126A(7) of the SISA, details of this disqualification notice will be published in the Commonwealth Government Notices Gazette.
Note 2:
Under section 126K of the SISA, it is an offence for a disqualified person, who knows that he or she is a disqualified person, to be, or act as a:
› trustee, investment manager or custodian of a superannuation entity
› responsible officer or a body corporate that is a trustee, investment manager or custodian, of a superannuation entity
The maximum penalty for committing this offence is two years jail.
Note 3:
Under subsection 126A(5) of the SISA, we may revoke this disqualification on our own initiative or on your written application.
Note 4:
Under section 344 of the SISA, if you are affected by this decision and are not satisfied with it, you can ask the Commissioner to reconsider the decision. This request must be made in writing within 21 days of receiving notice of this decision and must give the reasons you think the decision is wrong.
Overview
The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA) was enacted by the Parliament of Australia to regulate the administration and supervision of superannuation funds. This legislation was introduced to address the need for a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure the proper management and oversight of superannuation entities, safeguarding the interests of superannuation fund members. The policy objective is to maintain the integrity and stability of the superannuation industry by imposing strict regulatory standards and ensuring accountability among trustees and other responsible officers. Under the SISA, individuals who have contravened the provisions of the Act can be disqualified from performing certain roles within superannuation entities, as demonstrated in the notice to Bridget Ndhlovu. The Act also outlines severe penalties, including imprisonment, for those who continue to act in prohibited capacities post-disqualification.
Scope and Application
The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA) applies to individuals and entities involved in the supervision of superannuation entities, with a particular focus on trustees, investment managers, and custodians. The Act has a national reach, governing conduct and transactions within the Commonwealth of Australia, ensuring compliance with standards set for the administration of superannuation funds. It excludes certain entities as specified within the Act or through subordinate instruments, although it does not specify particular exclusions in this instance. The Act's provisions can be extended or restricted through regulations or other subordinate instruments, allowing for adjustments in its application. In this case, Bridget Ndhlovu has been disqualified under subsection 126A(1) of the SISA for contravening the Act, with the disqualification becoming effective immediately upon issuance. This disqualification prohibits her from acting as a trustee, investment manager, or custodian of a superannuation entity, and contravening this prohibition constitutes an offence with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
Key Provisions
The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA) provides for the disqualification of individuals from certain roles within the superannuation industry if they have contravened the Act in a manner serious enough to warrant such action. In this case, Bridget Ndhlovu has been disqualified under subsection 126A(1) of the SISA, which empowers a delegate of the Commissioner of Taxation to disqualify an individual if they are satisfied that the person has contravened the SISA and the seriousness of the contraventions provides grounds for disqualification. This disqualification notice was issued by Emma Rosenzweig, a delegate of the Commissioner of Taxation, on 27 February 2023.
The disqualification imposes specific obligations and requirements on Bridget Ndhlovu. Under section 126K of the SISA, it is an offence for a disqualified person who is aware of their disqualification to act as a trustee, investment manager, custodian, or responsible officer of a superannuation entity. This means that Bridget Ndhlovu is legally prohibited from taking on any role that involves managing or overseeing superannuation funds until her disqualification is lifted. Moreover, any body corporate associated with Bridget Ndhlovu in such roles is also subject to these restrictions.
Failure to comply with these obligations can result in severe consequences. Section 126K of the SISA stipulates that knowingly acting in a prohibited capacity while disqualified is an offence, with a maximum penalty of two years in jail. This underscores the seriousness of the disqualification and the importance of adhering to the restrictions imposed. Furthermore, under subsection 126A(5) of the SISA, the disqualification may be revoked either on the initiative of the delegate of the Commissioner of Taxation or upon a written application by Bridget Ndhlovu herself. However, this does not negate the immediate effect of the disqualification or the potential for criminal prosecution if the prohibited activities continue.
If Bridget Ndhlovu is dissatisfied with the disqualification decision, she has recourse under section 344 of the SISA. She can request the Commissioner to reconsider the decision in writing within 21 days of receiving the notice. This provision ensures that there is a mechanism for challenging the decision, allowing for a review of the grounds on which the disqualification was based. This offers a degree of procedural fairness and an opportunity to address any perceived errors or injustices in the decision-making process.