The traditional model of superannuation, where funds quietly manage retirement savings in the background, no longer aligns with the lived experience of many members. Today, Australians are engaging with their super more frequently and more emotionally, particularly during life events such as retirement, disability, or bereavement.
These “moments that matter” are redefining what service means in the super context.
ASFA’s podcast for the superannuation sector Voice of Super, discussed service in super with two leaders in the field, Jocelyn Furlan, the former chair of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, and Brendan Daly, Chief Service Officer at Rest.
From transactional to transformational
Historically, superannuation has been a low-engagement product. Members often interacted with their fund only when changing jobs or receiving annual statements. But that paradigm is shifting.
As balances grow and the population ages, members are increasingly seeking reassurance, guidance, and support, not just performance.
Brendan Daly, Chief Service Officer at Rest Super, says that service means asking questions such as: “Are you feeling looked after? Are you being kept informed? Are you being cared for? And is someone looking out for your outcomes?”
These are the questions that now define service in super, not just whether a transaction was processed correctly, but whether the member felt supported throughout the experience.
And this evolution is not just about sentiment.
It reflects a broader societal trend toward customer-centricity, where expectations are shaped by experiences with banks, utilities, and digital platforms. Members now expect their super fund to be responsive, transparent, and empathetic, especially when navigating complex or emotionally charged situations.
The structural lens: Are we built for this?
While the intent to improve service is clear across the industry, there are deeper structural questions that need to be addressed.
Jocelyn Furlan, former Chair of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and Chair of ASFA’s Service Standards Working Groups, suggests that the legal and regulatory frameworks underpinning super may no longer be fully aligned with member expectations.
“There are some really big, interesting questions we could be asking about whether the structure is hindering our becoming what we really need to be for members,” she says.
In particular, she points to the sole purpose test, which restricts funds to providing retirement benefits, as a potential barrier to offering the kind of holistic support members increasingly expect.
This tension is especially evident in retirement, where members may need advice, emotional support, or help navigating government systems.
Yet under current law, funds must tread carefully to avoid overstepping their remit. As Furlan notes, “We need to ask whether trust law in a retirement environment is actually the right structural basis for the super industry to genuinely help members.”
Designing for diversity and the trade-offs of service
One of the most complex challenges facing super funds is how to design service models that meet diverse member needs while remaining efficient and sustainable.
Daly highlights the inherent trade-offs: “You may have some customers that want calls answered in 20 seconds. Others want long, meaningful conversations with highly informed experts. And some want really low fees. All those things tend to work against each other.”
This diversity of expectations is further complicated by the emergence of different fund models, from digital-only platforms to high-touch, advice-driven offerings.
The industry must now grapple with how to define and communicate service standards that are both meaningful and flexible, allowing for differentiation while maintaining a baseline of quality.
Setting the standard: Voluntary and regulatory approaches
In response to these challenges, the industry has begun to formalise its approach to service through the development of voluntary standards.
Recent work led by ASFA has focused on two critical areas: insurance claims handling and death benefit processing. These are the moments when members are most vulnerable and when service failures can have the greatest impact.
Furlan, who chaired the working groups behind these standards, says the process was an opportunity for the industry to reflect on its values. “It was a really great opportunity for the industry to step up and say we’re prepared to set some standards for member services across the industry,” she says.
A key concept emerging from this work is the idea of “defaulting to vulnerability.” In practice, this means assuming that members making claims are in distress and designing processes that are empathetic, clear, and supportive. It also means rethinking communication, ensuring that expectations are set realistically and that members understand what to expect at each stage.
These voluntary standards are designed to complement the mandatory service standards currently being developed by Treasury.
Furlan sees potential for the industry to go further: “It might be that the industry chooses to have higher voluntary service standards than the mandatory service standards in certain areas.”
Measuring what matters for members
While metrics such as turnaround times are important, both Daly and Furlan caution against relying solely on quantitative measures. Furlan proposes a dual lens: one that considers both member expectations ( If someone dies they want to know “How long will it take to get paid?”) and fund behaviour in terms of adminstrator’s activity (“Has this file been touched in the last 10 days?”).
Daly agrees, noting that the real value of service standards lies in their ability to prompt reflection and improvement.
“It’s not necessarily about what they are. It’s actually the impact it has on the industry and the fact that it helps funds actually think about what they’re doing with a lot more focus,” he says.
He adds that most funds are motivated to exceed benchmarks, not just meet them. “We will always strive to do better than any benchmark that’s actually being put out there.”
The human element of service as empathy
Perhaps the most powerful insight from this evolving conversation is that service in super is deeply personal. It’s not just about systems and standards, it’s about people. As way of an example, Daly shares a story of a bereaved member who wasn’t ready to engage with their fund for six months about a death benefit waiting for them.
“We’ve reached out to people and they said, ‘We are not ready to talk about this and won’t be for some time.’ And you just wait and make sure they know you’re there for when they’re ready.”
This kind of patience and empathy can’t be captured by a KPI, but it’s what members remember.
As Furlan puts it, “In conjunction with the mandatory service standards and in conjunction with ASFA’s standards, we absolutely must be thinking about what’s the right risk-based approach to these transactions in 2025.”
The superannuation industry is at a crossroads. The expectations of members, the demands of regulators, and the realities of modern service delivery are converging in ways that challenge long-held assumptions. But they also present an opportunity for funds to redefine their role, reimagine their service models, and recommit to the people they serve.
🎧 Want more?
Listen to Episode 5 of the Voice of Super podcast with Brendan Daly and Jocelyn Furlan in conversation with ASFA’s Madeleine Morris.Their insights offer a valuable lens on where the sector is heading and how it can rise to meet the moment.
