Super funds blindsided by watchdog’s unreleased review

A SUPERANNUATION industry group and its members have been blindsided by a corporate watchdog report released to the media before the industry itself.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission review found the superannuation sector was falling behind other industries in warning members about scams and supporting victims.

Industry body the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia was not consulted on the report.

“Neither ASFA nor our member funds have yet seen ASIC’s review, only a media release and some reporting in the media earlier today,” association chief executive Mary Delahunty said in a statement.

“The media release says the review is about the amount of information that super funds put on their websites about scams and fraud, not about actual financial crime prevention measures taken by the sector.”

These included stronger authentication, better detection of unusual account activity, and investigating stricter controls around high-risk transactions like switches from traditional funds to platforms or self-managed super funds, she said.

The ASIC review of website communications found superannuation trustees were falling behind other industries in communicating scam and fraud risks.

“Our latest review of superannuation website content confirmed that super funds often lacked clarity, accessibility, and support for scam victims,” commissioner Simone Constant said on Wednesday.

“When benchmarked against other industries, super funds fell short for victims.”

The review, which examined anti-scam and fraud content on company websites for clarity, relevance and prominence, found super funds are significantly lagging the banks.

Banks scored positively in 80 per cent of measured criteria, compared to between 40 and 60 per cent for super funds.

The commission wants funds to lift their game to protect Australians’ nest eggs, which were $22 million lighter in 2025 due to scams, according to the National Anti-Scam Centre.

“Super trustees have a clear and unavoidable responsibility to oversee risk and ensure these emerging threats are identified and managed actively,” Ms Constant said.

ASIC found that while most funds offered some kind of information on scams and fraud, it was often hard to find, while several funds offered no information at all.

Less than two in five funds clearly outlined what a scam was, while one in three offered no messaging on common warning signs, and only one-third of funds provided actionable information on how to prevent or report scams, the review found.

The industry denied these claims, noting all super funds had dedicated channels on which members could make contact.

“While these may not be labelled as dedicated fraud and scam lines, every superannuation fund member can report scams or fraud and seek assistance,” Ms Delahunty said.

Ms Delahunty said ASFA looked forward to working constructively with ASIC, once it published the review.

“We’re looking forward to working with (Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino) on reforms,” she said.

“This might include adding some friction to high-risk switching and clamp down on high-pressure selling, while still protecting member choice.”

Consumer advocate Super Consumer Australia backed the report and urged the federal government to add super funds to its national Scams Prevention Framework rollout.

The framework sets out rules and requirements for businesses in segments targeted by scammers, but so far it only applies to banks and financial firms, telecommunications providers and digital platforms like social media and messaging services.

“After another year of insufficient action, we have no faith the sector will resolve these problems on their own,” the advocate group’s chief executive Xavier O’Halloran said.

Mr O’Halloran wants to see the introduction of enforceable customer service standards.

“It’s time the super sector did its fair share in safeguarding Australia’s financial system and protecting their members’ retirement savings from scams and fraud.”