ASIC backs super trustees dobbing in anomalous switching

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

27 March 2026

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has again placed platform superannuation trustees on notice that they need to up their game on ongoing oversight when they allow products on their platforms.

At the same time, the regulator has made clear that it supports legislation compelling super trustees to report what they see as anomalous superannuation switching behaviour.

ASIC Commissioner, Alan Kirland has told a Superannuation Lawyers Conference that member choice with respect to superannuation does not displace trustee responsibility.

“If a trustee makes an investment option available on its platform, ASIC expects that the trustee has undertaken its own due diligence and continues to monitor the option appropriately over time,” he said.

“Product risk doesn’t become somebody else’s problem because advice was given, or because the member selected it. In other words, the trustee remains accountable for its decisions in making financial products available to members.”

Kirkland also made clear that ASIC will be acting to ensure that superannuation trustees are actually capable of living up to the governance settings they adopt and specifically referenced Diversa.

“…our focus extends to whether or not trustees are actually capable of giving effect to the governance settings they have adopted. This is particularly relevant in the Diversa proceeding, where ASIC alleges failures not only in diligence and monitoring, but also failures to have systems and processes in place to ensure compliance with a 50% holding limit,” he said.

“More broadly, the matters suggest ASIC expects trustees to have practical mechanisms for watch‑listing, risk exposure management, escalation and, where necessary, proactive intervention.”

Kirkland said trustees should have processes in place that allow them to identify practices that may result in the erosion of super balances, including from inappropriate advice fee charges.

“Our surveillance reports over the past few years have repeatedly highlighted the need for greater trustee oversight, including in relation to superannuation-switching business models.”

“In particular, Report 779 – our review of superannuation trustee practices to protect members from harmful advice charges – made it clear that involvement of advisers, platforms, or research houses does not displace trustee responsibility,” Kirkland said.

“In other words, the legal obligation of superannuation trustees to act in the best financial interests of members cannot be outsourced. Our Report 781 also cautioned against an over-reliance on member consent forms in lieu of robust oversight practices – as I said before, product risk doesn’t become somebody else’s problem simply because the member selected it.”

“We’re currently undertaking a review of superannuation trustee practices to better understand the steps they have taken to disrupt the high-risk super switching model, building on those previous surveillance programs.

“We’re also supportive of the government’s proposal to introduce a legislative obligation on superannuation trustees to report to ASIC suspicious or anomalous patterns of behaviour, which the trustee reasonably considers could place their membership at risk of significant detriment.

“In noting our support for that proposal, it is worth observing that some trustees are doing that now – and the alerts that they send us are a valuable source of intelligence. We would simply like to see that adopted as a broader practice across the system,” Kirkland said.