First Nations super reform push grows as report details barriers in retirement system

Pressure is building for changes to Australia’s superannuation system after a new report, backed by First Nations leaders and spotlighted this week, found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to face legal, administrative and cultural barriers that prevent them from fully benefiting from their retirement savings.

The report, A fair retirement: Removing barriers in super for First Nations peoples, was produced by the Super Members Council in partnership with First Nations Foundation. It identifies six better-practice principles for funds and five reforms for government and regulators, arguing that the system still fails many First Nations members at the points where support matters most — including identity verification, hardship access, death benefit claims and beneficiary arrangements.

At the centre of the concern is a mismatch between the structure of Australia’s super laws and the lived realities of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. The report says narrow legal definitions of spouse and children often do not recognise kinship structures and community caregiving arrangements, meaning culturally significant family members can be excluded from death benefit nominations and related claims. It also points to rigid identification requirements, inconsistent cultural safety in customer service, and low trust in systems that were not built with First Nations users in mind.

The economic context makes those barriers more consequential. According to the report, First Nations people still earn up to 30 per cent less than non-Indigenous Australians, are more likely to be in insecure work and have lower full-time employment rates, which translates into lower lifetime super contributions. It says super coverage for First Nations workers rose from 70 per cent in 2002 to 78 per cent in 2022, but remains below the national figure of 92 per cent. Median balances also remain far lower, at about $28,000 compared with roughly $70,000 for non-Indigenous Australians.

Super Members Council chief executive Misha Schubert said the system “has not worked equally fairly for everyone”, while First Nations Foundation chief executive Leah Bennett argued that reform must be driven by honesty, collaboration and the voices of those directly affected. Bennett said “our people deserve more than survival”, framing the issue as one of fairness, dignity and long-term economic security.

The report recommends explicit recognition of First Nations kinship structures in super law, clearer guidance on non-standard forms of identification, and stronger regulatory expectations from bodies such as APRA and ASIC around cultural safety and service standards. It also calls for better support for collecting Indigenous status information in ways aligned with Indigenous data governance principles.

This is not a debate about abstract policy fine-tuning. Superannuation is often the largest financial asset a person holds outside housing, and it can become especially important during bereavement, hardship or retirement. When access is delayed or rules do not reflect family reality, the consequences can be immediate and severe.

What the report does is push a question that has sat too long on the edges of financial policy into the centre: if super is meant to deliver dignity in later life, can it really be said to work if it is not working fairly for First Nations people?