ASIC issues a 'wake-up call' about complaints handling in superannuation

ASIC's report calls on trustees to assess their IDR arrangements to ensure compliance 5 min read

Earlier this week, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released Report 844: Lessons to be learned: How trustees use insights from superannuation complaints on how superannuation trustees are learning from the complaints they receive and, more specifically, how those trustees use them to detect and address systemic issues exposed by complaints to meet member expectations and improve member service delivery. ASIC describes its findings as a 'wake-up call' for the sector as to the value of complaints in risk mitigation and service delivery, as well as ensuring compliance with internal dispute resolution (IDR) obligations.

ASIC found 'significant disparities' in the 'adequacy and maturity of trustees' processes to identify and respond to systemic issues from complaints' and 'failures to implement those processes in actual practice'.

ASIC has called on all superannuation trustees to assess their IDR arrangements against the report and make timely improvements and, where necessary, consider external assurance. ASIC has also warned trustees that it 'remain[s] committed to holding superannuation trustees to account for member service failures' and that it will pay particular attention to trustees who fail to act after having been 'put on notice' (including by this report), with potential responses including supervisory engagement, compliance action, licensing conditions and enforcement action.

How ASIC collected its information

ASIC used its compulsory information-gathering powers to assess all 45 ASIC-regulated superannuation trustees and conduct an in-depth review of 10:

• Industry-wide assessment: ASIC combined standardised responses from 45 trustees. Questions covered the number of identified systemic issues for the period 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025, as well as staff training and complaints analysis and reporting for 1 July 2024 to 31 October 2025, among other topics.
• In-depth review: The 10 trustees were selected with regard for fund size, complaint volumes, fund type, and regulatory intelligence. ASIC obtained written responses, data workbooks and supporting records, including board reporting, audits and complaint-level data for 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2025, with follow-up information collected up to 21 May 2026.

The findings therefore cover different periods, rather than providing a snapshot of a single point in time. The reported counts of systemic issues tended to reflect trustees’ own definitions, which were not always aligned with ASIC's Regulatory Guide for Internal Dispute Resolution (RG 271). This variability is an important qualification when comparing results.

Key takeaways

ASIC considers low reported numbers of systemic issues to be a 'red flag'

• Close to one-quarter of trustees (11 of 45) were not regularly analysing complaints data to identify systemic issues. Additionally, in the two years to 30 June 2025, 24 trustees identified fewer than five systemic issues, including 14 trustees that identified none, despite some of those trustees recording relatively high rates of complaints.
• Low identification rates are a potential red flag, rather than evidence of better performance, on the basis that they may suggest trustees are under-recording member complaints – possibly due to discrepancies in definitions, complaints management systems, and/or lack of staff training – and leaving systemic issues unaddressed. The report notes the Australian Financial Complaints Authority identifies systemic issues from complaints at 'almost twice the rate of trustees' in support of this contention.
• Trustees should establish 'arrangements or practices consistent with a culture that values and uses complaints as a source of insight to improve member services'. ASIC comments that some trustees disproportionately 'blame' customers and members for complaints, reflecting an insufficient focus on members and ignoring opportunities for improvement.

Boards need meaningful reporting and should challenge trustee management

• Nine of the 10 trustees reviewed in-depth lacked relevant performance metrics relating to the detection of systemic issues from complaints.
• In many cases, there is a lack of evidence that boards or board committees challenge trustee management on action taken in response to complaints and systemic issues, which delays rectification and remediation.
• Effective and complete reporting on potential systemic issues, investigations and outcomes is needed. There are indicators of an overreliance on incident management reporting as a proxy for the identification of systemic issues (an approach that risks falling short of compliance with IDR obligations).

Data quality and root-cause analysis need attention

• Some trustees have adopted inappropriate definitions of 'complaints' and 'systemic issues' that obscure the true scale of an issue or potential issue. ASIC was clear, for example, that trustees must adopt the broad definition of 'systemic issue' in RG 271.117, namely, 'a matter that affects, or has the potential to affect, more than one consumer'. It did so without recognising the practical challenges that arise from the adoption of that definition.    
• Incomplete complaints data can set trustees up to 'fail to learn from complaints from the very beginning' due to the lack of meaningful insights that can be drawn when certain information is missing.
• Internal definitions must align with RG 271, and analysis must be robust, cover complete complaints datasets and be conducted regularly to increase the likelihood of detecting systemic issues.

What should trustees do now?

ASIC's report is a warning shot to all trustees. Trustees should conduct wholesale reviews of their complaints handling policies, systems and processes to address the deficiencies exposed in the report and ensure compliance with RG 271.

As a first step, a review might usefully include a comparative analysis between current systems and processes and the 13 'key actions for trustees' highlighted on page seven of the report. Other prioritised steps may include:

• testing and updating complaint and systemic issue classification, capture, and data quality;
• benchmarking complaint volumes against peers to ensure complaints are not being inadvertently under-reported – as part of a 'complaint positive' culture;
• uplifting systems and processes for tracking potential systemic issues through investigation, identification of affected members, rectification and any required remediation;
• strengthening board reporting and governance; and
• seeking third-party assurance where appropriate.

Further, trustees should continue to reflect on the lessons learned from ASIC v Telstra Super and consider what relief the Federal Court ultimately decides to impose in that case, as those decisions will provide useful insights into how Australian courts interpret claims-handling obligations and, importantly, assess compliance with them.