AustralianSuper’s Fee Increase: What Members Will Pay

AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest superannuation fund, is lifting its administration fee for accumulation members from 0.10% to 0.12% starting 31 October—the first increase since 2022. The annual administration fee cap will also rise from $350 to $600. For the fund’s 3.6 million members, the change means higher weekly costs depending on their balance.

Members with a balance up to $50,000 will pay roughly 49 cents more per week. Those with balances up to $250,000—about 88% of accumulation members—face an increase of up to $1.83 a week. For members holding $350,000 to $500,000 or more, the extra cost reaches $5.97 a week.

Deputy chief executive Rose Kerlin said the fee rise would fund “simpler, safer and more personalised experiences,” citing in‑house member‑facing services, stronger account security, expanded advice and guidance, and enhanced digital tools. She noted call centre wait times had dropped below two minutes and member satisfaction scores were at record highs.

However, a mystery‑shopper study by Super Consumers Australia found AustralianSuper failed to answer 90 % of calls in a survey of 20 major fund call centres. AustralianSuper disputes the findings, stating the survey was conducted more than a year ago and it has since moved to a new call centre provider. Super Consumers Australia chief executive Xavier O’Halloran called on all funds to improve phone‑based support, saying members need to know “their fund will pick up the phone” in times of need.

Advertisement

The Trade-Off: Higher Fees vs Promised Service Gains

The Fee Hike: What It Brings vs What It Costs

AustralianSuper frames the increase as an investment in member experience—cybersecurity, digital tools and advice services. For a member with a $100,000 balance, the fee moves from $100 to $120 a year (plus the higher cap for larger accounts), which could be seen as modest if the services genuinely prevent larger losses or help members make better decisions. However, superannuation is a long‑term product, and even a small percentage point change compounds over decades. The challenge for members is gauging whether the promised improvements translate into tangible value that justifies the extra cost.

Customer Service Reality Check

The mystery shopper data undercuts the fund’s narrative of better service. While AustralianSuper points to a new call centre provider and says the survey is outdated, the fact that no major fund performed well in the study suggests a persistent industry‑wide problem. The discrepancy between high self‑reported satisfaction scores and poor third‑party call‑answering rates raises questions about how the fund measures service quality. For members, this is not an abstract metric: it matters when they need urgent help with an insurance claim, a rollover or a death benefit. The gap between the fund’s marketing and independent testing is a reputational risk that could erode member trust over time.

What AustralianSuper Members Should Do Now

  • If your balance is under $50,000, the weekly cost increase is small—49 cents—so the decision may hinge on whether you value the fund’s enhanced digital tools and advice. Still, over decades even that adds up; use the fund’s fee disclosure to see your exact annual cost projection.
  • For members with larger balances (above $250,000), the $5.97 a week increase is more material. Compare AustralianSuper’s total fees (including investment fees) with those of competing funds that offer similar risk profiles and performance. The government’s YourSuper comparison tool makes this easier.
  • Service quality is hard to measure, but you can test it yourself: call the fund with a genuine question and time the response. If it doesn’t meet your expectations, note that the fund’s own satisfaction survey may not reflect real‑world accessibility.
  • The annual fee cap doubling to $600 matters for members with large balances; if you are approaching or above the cap, ask whether the extra services—cybersecurity, advice—are worth the premium, or whether a lower‑cost fund with better‑ranked service could be a better fit.