AMP urges fix for gap in super platforms testing

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

11 May 2026

AMP Limited has emerged at the forefront of voices calling on the Government to use its review of the superannuation performance test to fix platform-based superannuation.

AMP Group Executive, Platforms, Edwina Maloney said the review could “fix a massive gap in Platforms testing that has failed to protect consumers from poor outcomes”.

Maloney pointed to the fact that under current arrangements, only 3% of the market is covered by the performance test.

“Further, we have been calling for years for changes to the fundamental flaws in the test’s methodology, which are creating confusion, impeding financial advice and pushing Australians out of high-quality, low-cost investments,” Maloney said.

She said AMP would strongly oppose any proposal to include historic administration fees, as this would open the door for funds to lift fees.

“Ultimately, the goal of the test should be simple: stronger governance, fairer assessment and clearer information, so Australians can make confident, informed decisions about their retirement savings.

“The test must protect the increasing number of Australians who are engaging with their super – seeking advice, greater control and broader investment choice through wrap platforms,” Maloney said.

For its part, the Financial Services Council (FSC) cautioned against changes to the superannuation performance test that risked weakening consumer outcomes.

It also warned against “expanding the test to products where the result would be inherently inaccurate and misleading for consumers”.

The FSC also cautioned against the Government’s proposal to expand coverage of the test to include externally directed products and retirement products, which are more varied and tailored to individual consumer needs.

FSC chief executive, Blake Briggs said the FSC “is extremely cautious about proposals for expanding the test into more complex products, where test outcomes may become harder to interpret and potentially even confusing for consumers, and are less meaningful from a consumer protection standpoint.

“Applying an investment performance and fees test to externally directed products, where consumers make decisions with professional advice, and to retirement products, where outcomes depend on individual retirement circumstances and needs, is not comparable to how the test is used for MySuper products,” he said.

“In the MySuper space, members are typically less engaged and still in the accumulation phase, making an investment performance and fees measure more appropriate.”

The FSC also urges the Government to fix the perverse outcomes created by applying the test to trustee-directed products on platforms.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has welcomed a modernisation of the performance test noting that existing benchmarks had made some investments “look artificially less attractive than they really are in a long-term context like super”.

“Modernising and strengthening the test could allow for greater investment in emerging assets. Assets that are not well covered by current benchmarks that drive strong long-term returns and can also align with national resilience efforts include energy, defence, agriculture and early-stage Australian venture capital,” ASFA chief executive, Mary Delahunty said.

She said ASFA also remains open to exploring how the performance test could be extended to cover more superannuation products in a practical way.