APRA levy still disadvantaging small funds

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

17 June 2026

Members of smaller superannuation funds are continuing to be significantly disadvantaged by the methodology sitting behind the so-called “APRA levy”.

As well, Treasury has been reminded that, compared to a decade ago, superannuation funds are now paying 166 per cent more when the consumer price index (CPI) over the same period has risen by only 35 per cent.

Responding to Treasury consultation around the proposed Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies for 2026-27, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has pointed out that, once again, mega-funds such as AustralianSuper are paying substantially less than smaller funds such as NESS Super.

It said the estimated impact on fund members “varies significantly according to the size of their superannuation fund”.

“If it is assumed that the average balances of fund members are similar regardless of the size of fund, and equivalent to the system-wide average, then the levy amounts per member for 2026-27 are: around $5 for a large fund ($100 billion), around $10 for a medium fund ($20 billion), and around $13 for a small fund ($1 billion),” ASFA said.

It said that for superannuation funds, levies are ultimately funded from administration fees charged to members’ accounts. For the APRA-regulated superannuation industry, the latest annual data show that total administration fees were around $4.3 billion for 2024-25, or around 0.15 per cent of total assets (as of June 2025).

“An estimated impact on MySuper members can be calculated (assuming that the cost of levies for funds are distributed on a pro-rata basis, according to the number of member accounts, across superannuation fund members).

“Given that the 15.4 million MySuper accounts represent around two thirds of all accounts, then the amount payable by each MySuper member with respect to the combined levies for 2026-27 would be around $7. For all MySuper products, the average administration fee is around $130 per annum,” it said.

The ASFA submission references the transparency and impact of levy rates and thresholds noting that to account for the increase in total proposed levies for the superannuation sector, the 2026-27 FISLs Paper proposes increases to the levy rates on individual funds: an increase of 9.6 per cent for the levy rate on the restricted component, and an increase of 5.0 per cent for the levy rate on the unrestricted component.

“Data provided in the FISLs Paper shows the impact of proposed changes by fund size, which can differ significantly. For example, from 2025-26 to 2026-27, for a fund with an asset base of $100 billion (large fund), levies increase by 6 per cent. In contrast, for a fund with an asset base of $20 billion (medium fund), levies increase by 9 per cent. As noted above, on a per member basis, the estimated impact is greater for members of smaller funds than for members of larger funds.”

ASFA said the Productivity Commission has highlighted potential negative impacts of industry cost-recovery levies.

“With respect to the proposed changes to the levy rates (and beyond the impact of the proposed rise in levies in the aggregate), consideration should be given to the relative impact within the superannuation sector. This includes not only the relative cost burden of any changes on existing funds, but also the degree to which any changes may raise barriers to entry – which would limit competitive dynamics and future productivity improvements.”