Super funds failing on death benefit comms: SCA

New research by Super Consumers Australia (SCA) found two-thirds of Australians have not been contacted by their super fund over the past year encouraging them to make a binding death benefit nomination.

The Your Say on Super survey showed at least 15.5 million Australians may not have a binding death benefit nomination, a form that tells your fund who should get your super when you die.

SCA had done the same survey in 2024, which had found 36% of people, or at least 6.5 million Australians didn't have a death benefit nomination with their super fund.

"Again, funds are dropping the ball on customer service, and it is leading to real consumer harm. Reducing avoidable delays and uncertainty for grieving families is a no brainer," SCA chief executive Xavier O'Halloran said.

"So why aren't funds doing more to help members decide where their super goes after they die?"

SCA is calling on the government to introduce mandatory customer service standards requiring funds to communicate clearly with members and process death benefits within clear timeframes.

"Too many Australians only learn about the importance of a binding death benefit nomination after someone they love has died," O'Halloran said.

"An effective reminder from a super fund could help people make an informed decision, reduce delays and make an incredibly difficult time a little easier for grieving families. We know that some funds have had a lot of success with nomination campaigns. It's past time for the government to make this mandatory for all funds."

The findings come after SCA recently released a mystery shopping study of 20 major super fund call centres, which found on average, the customer satisfaction score did not clear 49.9%.

This study examined how frontline service providers engaged with three customer enquiry scenarios: prospective customers (40% of calls), culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) customers (30% of calls), and customers experiencing vulnerability (30% of calls).

No super fund scored above 55% across the metrics of ease, success and sentiment. None reached the 80% benchmark considered as the best practice "green zone".

The Super Members Council (SMC) had noted limitations on the research methodology, as the testers were not actually fund members, which meant a lot of the calls did not progress beyond the member verification process.