Op-Ed: we put super fund customer service to the test. The response tells its own story.

By Super Consumers Australia CEO, Xavier O’Halloran

Last week, Super Consumers Australia released our biggest piece of research of the year so far. We partnered with Customer Service Benchmarking Australia to mystery shop 20 major super fund call centres and test what happens when people pick up the phone for help.

The results should send shivers down the industry’s spine. The average score was 49.9 out of 100. No fund scored above 55. The “green zone”, the benchmark for strong service, starts at 80. Not one fund came close.

The research design was deliberate. We used the same methodology the funds use to assess themselves. 

We designed the pilot to test something basic: whether funds could listen, explain general processes, acknowledge distress and help callers understand what to do next.

Forty per cent of calls were from people thinking about joining the fund. They asked for general information about joining (e.g. what investment options the fund offers and information about fees and returns). Often people call a fund when they can’t find the information elsewhere and want to talk to a human, yet 23% were told to “go online” as the only solution.

Other calls tested common but challenging situations: someone helping a relative with limited English (30% of calls), or someone calling in distress (30% of calls).

For people with limited English, 58% of calls shifted responsibility back to the English-speaking go-between calling on their behalf instead of supporting the actual customer directly. A good outcome would have been simple: offer an interpreter and help the customer speak for themselves. Yet only one fund offered interpreter support upfront through its phone menu. Even when asked about translator options, agents across all funds were regularly uncertain about the process, despite funds having access to interpretation services.

Not putting the actual customer in the driver’s seat puts them at risk of financial abuse. Funds often talk a big game on security. In fact, they used security obligations as an excuse for not delivering good customer service. But this example points to an indifference to both good customer service and security.

For someone calling in distress, the bar was actually low: funds just had to act like a human. Acknowledging someone’s grief is the bare minimum when someone has just told you they’ve lost a loved one. Yet, 70% scored 5 out of 10 or lower for empathy. One caller said their mother was dying and they needed money to visit her in Europe. The response was: “Ok can you spell your surname?”. No acknowledgement, no empathy. A fund can have a process for staff to follow, but if they’ve removed any trace of humanity in the process, the customer service is going to be appalling.

Since the report was released, the response has been enormous. Radio hosts and callers have echoed the same stories: long delays, confusing processes, poor communication and no one taking responsibility. MPs have told us they’ve been hearing the same things in their communities.

The Government promised mandatory customer service standards for super funds last year. The Assistant Treasurer’s office has now publicly recommitted to standards that respond to the concerns raised in our report.

That is a step in the right direction. But promises will not fix poor service.

Those standards need to become enforceable rules, with public reporting and real accountability.