The corporate regulator’s investigation looked at 21 trustees that were putting their MySuper members into a high risk occupational category by default, examining the assumptions they used in this practice and how they were disclosing it to fund members.
The ASIC review was undertaken in 2019 and 2020 and focused on trustees whose members were typically either a broad-based mix of occupations, or mostly white collar.
The investigation found “significant variations in the sophistication of trustees’ assumptions and in the factors they took into consideration when designing their default category” and making the decision to assign the highest risk categories to members in a default fund option.
“Funds often select the highest risk category as their default to ensure all members are covered regardless of their occupation,” ASIC said.
“However, this means the premiums are comparatively high.”
Comparing average premium prices for the highest versus lowest risk insurance categories, the regulator found that premiums for lower risk categories were generally half the price of high risk categories, while in the case of five of the 21 trustees, low risk category premiums were between three and four times cheaper.
The ASIC review also found “poor disclosure by some funds, including about the relative cost of premiums in different categories and, in the case of 15 trustees, the use of a generic labels such as ‘standard’ or ‘general’ for the most expensive category”.
In addition, the process for members to update their insurance category was “generally not readily apparent or accessible”.
The investigation follows earlier intervention by ASIC to remove default smoker premiums charged to members of a number of funds offered by institutions including AMP, Colonial First State and IOOF.
IOOF-owned OnePath Custodians recently defended its decision not to remediate consumers who were charged premiums at smoker rates, saying fund members would have been charged more overall if there was no distinction between smokers and non-smokers.
However, ASIC commissioner Danielle Press said the results of the regulator’s investigation pointed to dubious assumptions being made by super funds around the likelihood of their members falling into high risk categories.
“Superannuation trustees should take a considered approach to designing their default insurance cover,” Ms Press said.
“While a high-risk occupational default may be appropriate in some circumstances, trustees need to be able to justify their default settings based on their membership base.”
The regulator said the review was part of a number of initiatives aimed at “improving trustee practices around default insurance in superannuation”, and that it would “soon communicate about measuring the value for money delivered for members”.




Not only are the premiums more expensive, but the cover may also be of lower quality (than a comparable ‘white collar’ policy from the same insurer / in the same fund).
It really is a parallel universe.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, they want cover that is a higher risk that is automatic this is the way of the world
And if an Adviser did this they would be forced remediation, of to AFCA for more charges and then banned for at least 5 years by ASIC.
As for Industry Funds and this Life Insurance Scam = ASIC will do it’s usual NOTHING
Superannuation Industry Funds are a FAKE ADVICE MODEL, insurance is a side show for them and they are not equipped to manage or advise upon it, it is time Aussie consumers got off their arses and recognised these kinds of limitations
It is probably a big earner for them – the more the clients pay the more bonuses they get from the insurer. Misclassifying the risk is very lucrative for somebody and it is not the client.
It must be a big earner. When you consider the % hit to many small accounts, the poor 20 year old has a hard time increasing their balance with the large outgoing premium drawing down on the balance. G
Where is the class action and remediation against Aus Super when they severely downgraded their TPD definitions? How many people have been unable to claim TPD because of this?
I was wondering about that. I heard that an MLC product did the downgrade too but haven’t heard from any other super fund.
You (should) know full well that under group insurance the terms and conditions change over time.