The plight of the snake oil salesman used to be a hard one. You’d have to go town to town selling your half truths and lies, hoping no one from the town you just left caught up with you. Social media platforms solved this problem, they let the modern snake oil salesman reach everyone with a device in seconds.

The platforms have done little to protect consumers in the process. They’ve got no incentive to: the shonks are among the social media platforms’ best paying customers. With social media, these salesmen can sell at scale in record time, leaving regulators, honest market participants and consumers to pick up the pieces.

This is the story of high risk super switching, the practice that has already ripped over a billion dollars from people looking to save for their retirement after people were funneled on an industrial scale into two dodgy investments. Yet these business models survive and cause catastrophic harm to people. They will do far worse if we don’t stop them.

My job is superannuation. I’d seen the consumer awareness campaigns warning people off high risk super switching and heard the catch cries, “if it sounds too good to be true it probably is”. I decided to sign up for one myself.

Signing up for a ‘super health check’

It was easy enough. My instagram feed was overflowing with advertisements showing ordinary people living busy lives who knew they should be paying more attention to their super, but didn’t know where to start. It was relatable, common sense guidance. They told me the government had tested the performance of funds and with a simple “super health check” I could find out if I was in one of the ones that failed. I entered my contact details and waited for a call.

A few days later, I got a call offering to put me in touch with a financial expert with over a decade of experience in super. The man I spoke to seemed knowledgeable, he was likeable and complimented me for getting on top of my super at a young age. He even complimented me on the decisions I’d made to date, like taking on more risk for longer term returns.

All the while he was running down the trust in my current super fund. He showed me how opaque their fee disclosures are, talked about super fund customer service failures and why my fund’s investment strategies deliver such poor returns. All good lies have an element of truth. 

A strong sales pitch

A week later I talked to a second financial adviser and was given a statement of advice with recommendations on what to do with my super. For someone with some knowledge of investment returns, there was no real magic to it.

They recommended 16 exchange traded funds (ETFs). The key selling point of this type of investment is it is usually a relatively cheap way to own a diverse mix of investments. They looked like they had a stronger history of performance than my existing super fund. My fund was delivering 11.5% p.a. compared to almost 16% p.a. in the adviser recommended ETFs over the last 5 years.

Looking under the hood, this 5-year comparison period was critical: most credible financial advice would use a longer timeframe among other types of comparisons. The last 5 years has been a boom period for semiconductors and gold. Lo and behold, the advice I received recommended ETFs that were heavily invested in these two markets.

Picking yesterday’s winners is not a skill. Semiconductors and gold may continue on their bull run for a while yet (although the glimmer has come off gold this year), but outperformance like this requires active management. Outside of an annual review, this is not what the financial adviser was offering. Conversely, my existing fund does actively manage my investments, so despite the sales pitch I likely would be much better off staying put.

All up, the advice was going to set me back $11,000 upfront and an ongoing advice fee of $3,800 a year. This is steep given the advice was relatively simple. In fact, it was cookie cutter. And much higher than the typical cost of advice, which is currently $4,700 according to the Financial Advice Association of Australia. On top of that, the administration and investment fees were 24% higher per year on the platform they recommended I join.

But here’s the thing. Even though I knew it was a switching scheme and I knew the advice was bad, it was still a very convincing sales pitch. They were smooth, they were professional and they took their time trying to convince me. I didn’t switch, but if I weren’t working in super… I might have. 

Dodgy advertisers should be banned

I’m sharing this as a warning to consumers, but also as a call to action for the government. Australians have diligently saved to create a $4 trillion dollar superannuation system. It’s now time to protect it by banning these dodgy advertisers. We need consumer protections to make sure super platforms are responsible for keeping people safe. Charging someone $11,000 for cookie cutter advice should never be allowed.  and we’ve heard reports of people being stung for $20,000 or more for dodgy switching advice. The bleeding of Australians’ retirement savings from inappropriate advice needs to end.

If my story sounds familiar, please check on your super and read about what you can do on the  website. It was developed by Super Consumers Australia with the support of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; it offers free, independent information to those impacted by the Shield and First Guardian Master Fund collapses.

Get the inside story on our investigations into consumer rip-offs and bad business practices.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post I signed up for a ‘super health check’. What I got was an $11,000 bill appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Bringing a new pet into your family isn’t a decision to be taken lightly – it’s a significant responsibility, both logistically and financially.

With some breeds fetching prices in the thousands of dollars, you’ll already have spent a small fortune before your new puppy or kitten has even come home. 

And whether you’re picking up a “bitzer” from a shelter or one with an impeccable pedigree, you just can’t predict what kind of mischief your pet may get up to, or what illnesses might lie ahead for your new family member.

Pet insurance may give you some peace of mind but, as with any insurance, the devil’s in the detail. Trying to understand what’s covered and compare policies can be like herding cats.

There can be exclusions on certain conditions and illnesses, limits on how much you can claim, decreasing cover as your pet ages, rules around pre-existing conditions, and more. So if your dog is as sick as … well, a dog, you might have to pay more than you’d expect.

If you’re on the hunt for the right insurance for your pet, you’ll be barking up the wrong tree with these policies below.

How we rank pet insurance policies

Our experts compare policies from more than 25 insurers, then score them based on their cover and how much you’ll pay out of pocket. 

The ĚÇĐÄVlog Expert Rating is our overall score and is made up of the cover score (which makes up 70%) and the out of pocket score (30%).

When assessing each policy’s cover, we look at 30 different features, including the range of conditions and treatments covered and how easy it is to settle a claim. 

The out of pocket score is based on the maximum annual limit available, as well as the options for how much you can pay as an excess and how much of the bill is covered.

The pet insurance policies to avoid

“The policies in this list are the lowest-scoring ones we’ve reviewed for a range of reasons,” says ĚÇĐÄVlog insurance expert Daniel Graham. “Some have a lot of exclusions or low benefits, while others have sneaky conditions that reduce cover as your pet ages.”

These policies are some of the only ones on the market that will take on animals over 10 years old. For people with older pets looking to switch or get insurance for the first time, these may be the policies of last resort. 

“We suggest you avoid these and look for a policy that ranks highly in our comparison. It’s also worth remembering that pet insurance isn’t always a necessity, and a low-value policy can still leave you significantly out of pocket,” says Daniel.

Another option is to consider self-insurance, if you can afford to keep money aside in a savings account for when you might need it. But if buying a policy is the preferred option, Daniel says to make sure you read the fine print.

“Don’t forget to check the PDS (product disclosure statement) for a policy to make sure you know exactly what you’re covered for. Having a sick or injured pet is stressful enough without having to foot a much larger bill than you thought you would.”

These are the policies that our experts say aren’t the best bet for your pet.

Petcover Economy

• ĚÇĐÄVlog Expert Rating: 25%
• Cover score: 24%
• Out of pocket score: 28%

There are two things that make this policy terrible value.

No lifetime cover

The first is the lack of lifetime cover. This is the only policy in our comparison that doesn’t include this.

The PDS describes its cover as: “Illness and Injury is covered for Twelve (12) months, starting from the date during the Policy Year the Injury happened or the Clinical Signs of the Illness first occurred, or until the Maximum Benefit is reached, whichever happens first.”

After this, they won’t pay to treat the same injury or illness, or even the same clinical signs. If you renew, any condition your pet showed symptoms for in the previous year would then be considered a pre-existing condition, and excluded from future cover.

This means:

• Chronic conditions aren’t covered after 12 months from the date your pet first showed symptoms.
• Recurring illnesses aren’t covered if your pet showed clinical signs in a previous policy year.
• Injuries aren’t covered if your pet has sustained that injury in a previous policy year (this works bilaterally: an injury to one knee means the opposite knee is now also excluded).

“Continuity of cover, year after year, is one of those things we expect to be in our insurance policies by default,” says Daniel.

“You wouldn’t buy home insurance from a company that rejects theft claims because your house has been burgled before. You wouldn’t get health insurance from a company that will cover one knee replacement, then turn around and say the other is now an excluded pre-existing condition.

“Forget cover for pre-existing conditions. This policy barely covers your pet’s existing conditions.”

Reduced cover as pet ages

The second thing that makes this policy bad value is the ‘age contribution’, which means the policy pays out less as your pet gets older.

If your pet is under eight years old, the policy will cover 100% of the vet bill. (You’ll just pay the $150 excess.) Once your pet reaches eight (around the age many pets start needing more vet care), that cover drops to 80%. At age 10, it drops to 65%.

For some dog breeds the benefit drops at four and seven years instead. There are approximately 30 breeds that this applies to, including Irish Wolfhounds, Rottweilers, Bulldogs, Newfoundlands and more.

Read the full Petcover Economy review.

PetsOnMe Accident Plan

• ĚÇĐÄVlog Expert Rating: 30%
• Cover score: 30%
• Out of pocket score: 29%

“This is a very basic accidental injury plan, with a low annual limit of just $5000, which won’t go far if your pet needs major surgery or has several incidents in the one year,” says Daniel.

“It also doesn’t cover illness, or cruciate ligament injury, which is a fairly common injury in high-energy dog breeds.”

The company’s claims handling process is less than ideal, too. You’ll need to pay the whole vet bill upfront and then the insurer will pay you back once the claim has been processed.

“Some pet insurers have invested in making their claims process as frictionless as possible,” says Daniel. “There are brands that now offer direct-to-vet payments, and in some cases can settle a claim before you leave the vet.”

“With this policy, you’ll need to be able to cover the whole vet bill in the first place, which could leave you in a tricky position if you don’t have the money on hand at the time.”

Read the full PetsOnMe Accident Plan review.

Australian Seniors Basic Cover, Guardian Bronze & Real Insurance Classic

• ĚÇĐÄVlog Expert Rating: 53%
• Cover score: 67%
• Out of pocket score: 19%

These are three identical white label products issued by PetSure, the underwriter that dominates the pet insurance market.

They offer comprehensive cover for illness, but not common optional extras like cover for dental and behavioural conditions.

Injury cover is limited to a list of nine common events such as snake bite toxicity, bone fracture and motor vehicle incident.

“There’s nothing wrong with the list itself, but the market is moving toward comprehensive accidental injury cover, without needing to meet extra criteria about how that injury was sustained,” says Daniel.

These policies have no excess. While that might seem like a good thing at first glance, the downside of this is you can’t increase the excess to reduce your premium, like you can with most other insurance products.

And unfortunately, not having to pay an excess still doesn’t mean you won’t be out of pocket: these policies only cover 60% of eligible vet bills, the lowest reimbursement rate of any policy in our comparison.

The annual limit of $12,000 is on the lower side of pet insurance policies we’ve reviewed, but it’s not the worst. What makes it bad is the ‘per condition’ limit: it will only cover $2000 per condition.

To claim the annual $12,000 limit, your pet would need to be treated for six different illnesses or accidents in a single year, at a cost of at least $20,000 (because you can only claim 60% back).

In this implausible scenario you would be out of pocket $8000, plus the premium. That makes this policy particularly bad value.

Read the full reviews:

• Australian Seniors Basic Cover
• Guardian Bronze
• Real Insurance Classic

Know the products to avoid before you shop. Get our free guide and buy smarter.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post Pet insurance policies to avoid appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

That’s despite a confidence rate 19 percentage points higher than their Generation Z counterparts, and a 31 percentage point higher level of engagement with their superannuation.

The ‘Your Say on Super’ survey is a nationally representative survey of almost 5000 consumers of various generations.

CEO of Super Consumers Australia Xavier O’Halloran says the findings highlight the important differences in the needs and milestones of each generation when it comes to super, but that each stage is important. 

He says missing these key moments and steps can be costly come retirement time. 

“Each generation has unique challenges ahead for retirement, but no matter what generation you are, there are things you can do right now with your superannuation to set yourself up for the future,” O’Halloran says. 

Generation Z 

Of the youngest generation in the workforce, the survey found only 51% had engaged with their superannuation at all. Results show that 21% of Gen Zs did not know that employers are legally required to pay their employees superannuation.

“Our guidance for Gen Z is simply to log in to your superannuation and get to know your account,” says O’Halloran.

“It’ll be with you for a while, so make sure the basics are right – that your employer is paying your superannuation properly and all of your details are accurate.” 

Millennials

Of the Millennials surveyed, 62% had engaged with their super, but only 52% felt confident making a decision. 

Those with young families are being urged to check their super accounts to make sure their needs are reflected. The survey found 57% of Millennials did not know that superannuation funds automatically enrol you into their default insurance if you’re over 25 years old.

Gen X

“Many Gen Xers will be thinking about retirement, but still have time to make a difference in their super balances,” O’Halloran says. 

“Figure out your retirement target – the amount you need for a comfortable lifestyle in retirement. Then check that this lines up with the income you are likely to receive from your superannuation and the Age Pension.”

Baby Boomers

Super Consumers urge those of the Boomer generation and older to make a binding death benefit nomination, so they can control where their super goes after they die. 

“One of the most heartbreaking things we see is the struggles families have dealing with a family member’s superannuation while grieving,” says O’Halloran.

Need for education

For all generations, ASIC’s Moneysmart has further resources, calculators and information to help you engage with your superannuation. 

But O’Halloran says more needs to be done to educate Australians about superannuation,  including more funding for the Moneysmart resource and broadscale awareness campaigns. 

“The superannuation engagement gap between Boomers and Gen Z shows the government and the superannuation industry need to do a lot more to educate and empower people,” says O’Halloran. 

The post Australians failing to understand key stages in superannuation journey appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Since 2022, the former consumer advocate has been spending part of her time trawling the web for dodgy superannuation advertisements, plugging in her details and then taking note of what happens next. 

“I was getting so many phone calls it got to the point where I thought ‘I better get another phone’. So I have another phone, another name, another email. I have a spreadsheet where I track it all, but it’s a bit messy now,” she says. 

The people on the other end of the phone make Carolyn all kinds of promises. One man assures her she can be $200,000 better off in retirement if she switches super funds, without taking on any extra risk. 

“You have nothing to lose and everything to gain,” trumpets a pitch document that was sent to Carolyn. 

The promises roll in despite the fact that these types of callers are not legally allowed to provide financial advice or sell a financial product. They are what the industry calls “lead generators”, and recent financial scandals have experts calling for them to be banned altogether.

What are lead generators?

Lead generators gather your information – sometimes without your consent – from various interactions you may have had online. Perhaps web forms you’ve filled out, social media surveys you’ve responded to, or a competition you’ve entered. 

They might set up web pages that offer customers a “free super health check” or similar services, and promote them heavily on social media, through ads or partnerships with financial influencers.

Angel Zhong, deputy dean of the department of economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University, says ‘finfluencers’ often push the boundaries of what constitutes financial advice, and nudge people towards lead generators for a “kickback” or commission. 

“There is no such thing as a free lunch,” says Zhong. “That’s especially true in the world of online marketing.”

Once the lead generators have your details, they’ll then call you on the phone to get you interested in a product. 

In the world of superannuation, they are usually trying to convince you to switch your superannuation to a financial product with higher fees and higher risks.

Legal loopholes and anti-hawking laws

While the lead generator can’t legally sell you the financial product or service themselves without a licence, they will often get you interested in switching your super fund without mentioning the name of the product they’re trying to get you to invest in. 

Once the cold lead is sufficiently “warmed up”, they will forward you on to a financial adviser, who is licensed and allowed to sell a financial product. 

It’s a way around the legal protections and so-called anti-hawking provisions designed to  prevent the cold-call selling of financial products. 

Xavier O’Halloran, CEO of Super Consumers Australia, says it’s the simplicity of the premise that hooks people in. 

“People are being sold on the idea that they might be in a poor-performing superannuation fund and they can click a button and find out if they are, and then find a better one.

“But what typically follows from sharing their details is a series of high-pressure sales tactics, very carefully crafted to get people to switch superannuation funds for very, very high fees and higher risk,” he says.

Shield and First Guardian collapse

Alyssa Jackson has no idea how the lead generators got her phone number. The Gold Coast woman, who says she has always taken an interest in superannuation and regularly checks her balance, was in the local Woolworths supermarket in 2023 when she got a call offering her a comparison for free. 

“I thought, what can it hurt?” she says. 

Alyssa says she was passed through multiple people over the phone, who she describes as “very smooth”, before being convinced to roll over most of her superannuation into a new platform called First Guardian.

By 2025, the First Guardian Master Fund had infamously collapsed. Along with the demise of another investment scheme, Shield Master Fund, it left more than 11,000 Australians with little hope of ever seeing their retirement savings again. 

Alyssa lost around $60,000 in the collapse – a terrible outcome for her, but a small amount compared to many other victims. 

The corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), is still working through several ongoing court cases relating to the twin collapses, and liquidators are still trying to recover assets, but in total about $1.1 billion dollars of people’s retirement savings may have been lost in the scandal. 

Appearing before a parliamentary committee in May this year, ASIC confirmed that First Guardian and related funds had paid more than $100 million to lead generators to drum up business.

Time for an outright ban on lead generators

Stephanie Tonkin, CEO of Consumer Action Law Centre, says given the evidence of the harm that has been caused by lead generation, it is time for an outright ban. 

“Getting to the bottom of the extent and harm of lead generation is difficult because it is such a hidden problem, it is lurking in the background,” she says. 

But there is no doubt, she says, that lead generation has become “a significant source of consumer harm”.

O’Halloran from Super Consumers Australia agrees that it’s time the practice was banned, as does ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland.

Kirkland also argues against any kind of licensing of lead generators as a potential remedy, which some in the industry have called for. 

“We don’t see any benefit from licensing lead generators. Based on what we’ve seen in our work over time in this area, a clear ban on lead generation activities in relation to super would be more likely to protect consumers into the future,” Kirkland says. 

ASIC has taken the step of along with financial advice firms that work with them. Kirkland says it’s important information for consumers. 

“The people on the other end of the line can seem quite knowledgeable … we really do encourage people to be on the lookout for anybody that’s encouraging them to move their super,” he says. 

Super Members Council, the peak body representing industry super funds, also wants a ban on lead generation. 

“When you look at those searing case studies and witness and victim testimonials from these terrible collapses [Shield and First Guardian], this wasn’t driven in the main by individual consumers articulating that they were looking actively for a switch. It has often started with that clickbait activity,” Council CEO Misha Schubert says.

Super funds need to ‘step up’

Super Consumers’ O’Halloran says that big industry funds also have a role to play, and says they’ve been “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to combatting harmful lead generation practices. 

“They saw these outflows from their fund and did little to question or prevent it, they failed to engage with their members, and the lead generators preyed and took advantage of that,” he says. 

Schubert, from the Super Members Council, maintains that superannuation funds are providing consumers with warnings about dangerous products. 

But O’Halloran argues that every part of the super system must step up and take part in stamping out these predatory practices. 

“I have a harder time trying to leave my internet provider, my electricity provider or my health insurance than my super fund,” says O’Halloran. “Where is that call to understand why I am leaving? I think they could do a lot to warn people at that point.” 

Treasury is currently considering consultation feedback on ways to curb harmful lead generation activity and is expected to hand its recommendations to the government in the coming months. 

The post Why free superannuation health checks are more dangerous than you think appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Losing the ability to work because of illness or injury would strike a devastating financial blow for most of us. The ripple effects would be far-reaching, from mounting bills all the way to the prospect of defaulting on a mortgage.

This is where income protection insurance is supposed to come in. It’s generally an opt-in inclusion if you have insurance through your superannuation account, and it can also be obtained through a financial adviser or directly from the insurer.

There are conditions on how long it lasts and whether you qualify for it, but, when it works as advertised, having a significant portion of your income restored (generally around 75%) can keep the economic wolves at bay.

The problem is that the insurance industry has a shaky record on living up to its obligations. The delay between making an income protection claim and receiving payments can be unreasonably long, and the level and quality of communication from your insurer after you lodge a claim can be poor, sometimes very poor.

The latest Life Insurance Code Compliance Committee (Life CCC) annual report reveals the situation is getting worse.

The Life CCC monitors compliance with the Life Insurance Code of Practice, which as of July 2023 has required insurers to finalise income protection claims within five business days of receiving the information they need to decide whether to pay the claim or not.

For many policyholders in financial year 2024-25, it took a lot longer than that.

Violations of the code’s rules on timely income protection payments increased by 67% over the previous financial year, from 997 in 2023-24 to 1663 in 2024-25. The number of affected insurance customers went from 1000 to 1676. The data was provided to the Life CCC by insurers in accordance with their mandatory reporting requirements. It’s unclear whether these numbers tell the whole story.

Insurers’ poor communication skills called out

Life CCC chair Jan McClelland says income protection benefits “are designed to provide financial stability at a time when customers may be at their most vulnerable. Delayed payments can place additional strain on people who are already dealing with significant personal and financial challenges.”

Experiencing a communication breakdown with your insurer only makes matters worse.

“When customers don’t receive timely and clear information at the start of a claim, it can create uncertainty at an already stressful time,” McClelland says.

“Clear communication helps people understand what to expect and supports better outcomes throughout the claims process.”

The increase in income protection code breaches may have to do with the growing proportion of Australians who have been permanently disabled by a mental health condition.

According to a November 2025 report by the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI), the proportion had more than doubled over the previous 10 years, and there was a 40% increase in temporary disability payments due to a mental illness over the same time period.

The insurance industry’s discrimination against people suffering from a mental illness is well documented, and many organisations have called for reform, including Beyond Blue, Mental Health Australia, the Justice and Equity Centre and Sane Australia.

Income protection – both having cover rejected and having claims delayed or denied – is a particular area of concern.

In December 2023, ĚÇĐÄVlog conducted a mystery shop of 15 travel insurance providers and found widespread discrimination against customers disclosing a pre-existing condition of depression with anxiety, one of the most common mental illness combinations in Australia.

Where to lodge an income protection dispute

Your first step is to lodge a dispute with the insurance provider, which would have 45 days to respond. If you have income protection insurance through your super fund, lodge a dispute with the fund.

If you don’t think the response is fair or don’t receive one, you can to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

AFCA receives more complaints about income protection insurance than any other product category by a wide margin. There were 530 in 2024-25 as compared to 359 for the second most-complained about product, term life insurance.

In 2024-25, the insurers with the most disputes about income protection cover (per 100,000 policyholders) were:

• Purchased through financial adviser: Resolution Life, 1110 disputes.
• Purchased through superannuation: ART Life, 194 disputes.
• Purchased direct from insurer: TAL, 567 disputes.

Complaints about TPD claims

The Life CCC also called out a notable increase in complaints about Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claims in recent years.

McClelland says TPD claims are “often made in difficult and complex circumstances and customers need confidence that insurers’ processes will support timely, consistent and well communicated outcomes”, something that appears to be happening with declining frequency.

In 2024-25, the insurers with the most disputes about Total and Permanent Disability cover (per 100,000 policyholders) were:

• Purchased through financial adviser: Resolution Life, 278 disputes.
• Purchased through superannuation: Resolution Life, 4140 disputes.

McClelland says insurers need to take the Life CCC’s findings on board. 

“Understanding the drivers of dissatisfaction is an important step in improving both processes and customer experience.”

The post Insurers still failing to pay out income protection and TPD claims on time appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Tax time is a prime season for scammers.

It’s a period where we’re often rushing to get our affairs in order or waiting to hear from the government about refunds we’ll receive or debts we’ll have to pay.

Criminals often tap into this anxiety, using technology to pose as tax officials or government agents promising returns or demanding debts.

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) often sees more attempts to impersonate its staff around the new financial year, receiving 7500 reports of impersonation scams last July alone.

Using official-looking emails, calls, SMS messages and social media posts, criminals will try to force you to hand over money or sensitive personal information, which they can then sell online or use to commit fraud in your name or steal your tax refund or superannuation.

With many tax scams becoming harder to spot, we’ve trawled through the most common types to bring you an outline of the five slippery schemes scammers are likely to deploy in the coming months.

On this page:

• 1. Demanding debts
• 2. Requests for information
• 3. Promising refunds
• 4. Dodgy money-making opportunities
• 5. Fees for free services
• How to report a tax scam

1. Demanding debts

A new tax scam rearing its head sees criminals taking advantage of the fact that the ATO will sometimes request money from you.

Earlier this year, the tax office warned of emails appearing to come from it or online government service hub myGov. 

The emails claim that you own cryptocurrency that has to be “declared immediately” and urge you to call a number at the bottom of the message to avoid being prosecuted.

Such threats are a twist on a classic tax scam technique, often conducted via phone or SMS, where criminals accuse you of not paying enough tax and demand you pay them immediately to cover the shortfall.

To get you to act quickly, they might claim that a warrant will be issued for your arrest unless you pay right away.

Alternatively, they might claim your Tax File Number (TFN) has been suspended due to illegal activity and that you’ll need to make a payment to avoid being arrested or to protect your TFN.

How to spot them

The ATO may contact you by phone, email, SMS or post, but will never threaten you with arrest or to cancel your TFN.

If you’re unsure about a message appearing to come from the ATO, call them on 1800 008 540 and not on any phone numbers included in the suspicious message.

While people do sometimes have to send money to the government to settle tax debts, it should never be via gift cards, cryptocurrency or personal or offshore bank accounts.

New phone app feature fights fraud

If you download the and register your device, you can use the new “verify call” feature to make sure you’re really talking to the tax office.

Open the app while you’re on a call with someone claiming to be from the ATO, select “verify call” and you’ll receive a notification within 30 seconds if the contact is genuine.

2. Requests for information

Another new take on a perennial scam starts with an email advising you of an urgent document you need to sign in order to finalise your tax arrangements.

The email invites you to review the form using DocuSign, but when you click to do this, you’re taken instead to a copy of the myGov website.

Here, you’re asked to provide information about you that could be valuable to criminals, including your myGov sign-in credentials, name, date of birth and driver licence details.

This is just the latest in a succession of emails scammers have sent out over the last year that look like they come from the tax office or myGov – all contain links to malicious clones of the myGov website designed to steal information.

Criminals have also been known to include these sorts of appeals for personal details via fake ATO or myGov accounts on social media.

How to spot them

DocuSign is a legitimate platform, but the ATO doesn’t use it to finalise tax returns.

Furthermore, emails might appear to come from the ATO or myGov, but when you look closely at the actual email address of the sender, you might see the account has no obvious connection with these agencies.

In any case, neither the ATO or myGov will ever send you an unsolicited email or social media message with a link to use to log into their services.

They’ll also never ask you to provide sensitive personal information via these channels.

Don’t get ripped off. Our expert tips can help you spot and avoid the latest scams.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

3. Promising refunds

These sorts of phishing scams also often exploit our yearning for an EOFY refund on the tax we’ve paid over the year.

A classic tax refund scam sees you receive a message claiming to be from the ATO urging you to click on a link to secure your well-deserved reimbursement.

More elaborate attempts we’ve seen have involved government-branded emails, QR codes and promises of almost $900 – all you have to do is hand over your card details.

Clicking on these links or scanning the accompanying codes will probably deliver you to the same place – an official-looking clone site designed to steal your bank card and other details.

How to spot them

QR codes might be common in other parts of daily life, but neither the ATO nor myGov will ever send you one to log in to their online services.

They’ll also never send you unsolicited links to click on via SMS or email.

4. Dodgy money-making opportunities

The tax office is warning Australians not to get sucked in by dubious financial advice this EOFY, in particular, questionable hacks that purportedly lead to a bigger refund.

It’s seen a rise in tax tips and other financial content online and says we should think twice before acting on such leads, which often come from AI or “finfluencers” (finance influencers).

Some previous viral schemes have, at their core, been tax avoidance operations that are illegal and could land you in serious trouble.

Also beware of getting tax advice from AI chatbots such as ChatGPT. This advice can be inaccurate due to the models behind these platforms drawing information from a broad and inconsistent range of sources.

The ATO is reminding Aussie taxpayers that we’re responsible for making sure the information we or our tax agents provide as part of our tax return is accurate.

How to spot them

Heard about a tax scheme that sounds too good to be true? The ATO recommends seeking advice on any arrangements from a registered tax practitioner. 

Check if a practitioner is registered by using the Tax Practitioners Board’s .

You can report illegal tax schemes to the ATO via its online .
Steer clear of investment schemes promising unbelievable returns, urging you to get involved quickly or promoting themselves via ads on social media with photos or videos of well-known celebrities (often fake).

5. Fees for free services

Scammers passing themselves off as working for the tax office or another official agency may also offer services (for a price) which are actually available from the government for free.

For example, ads offering to help you get a TFN for a fee have been known to circulate on social media. In reality, these posts direct victims to websites built to steal money or personal information.

How to spot them

Applying for a TFN is free and can be done through the .

If you’re applying for one through a tax agent, check that they’re registered with the .

When looking for other official documents that you have to get from a state or federal government website, make sure the page has “.gov.au” in the web address.

How to report a tax scam

If you receive suspicious communication from the ATO, don’t give away any information, click any links, scan any codes, download software or open any attachments.

Call the ATO directly on 1800 008 540 to double-check what you’re being told.

If you’ve encountered a scam, report it to the ATO by emailing screenshots of social media posts and accounts or SMS messages to reportscams@ato.gov.au. You can also forward suspicious emails to the same address.

If you’ve given money or personal information to a scammer, contact the ATO on 1800 008 540. Also report these incidents to your financial institution, and to police via .

If you’ve encountered a myGov-related scam, you can via the Services Australia website.

For more on what to do in this situation, read our guide to the five things to do if you’ve been scammed.

The post 5 tax scams to watch out for this year appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Bought any tech in the last year that you use for work? Or maybe you’ve got your eye on a new device that’ll come in handy on the job?

As we approach the end of the financial year (EOFY), more than a few of us will be dreading the chore of doing our taxes.

But filing returns is a chance to reduce the amount we owe in tax and maybe even get a refund, thanks to the opportunity to deduct expenses related to our job.

Millions of Australians claim work-related tax deductions every year and many also claim costs they incur working from home.

With lots of us looking around for expenses to claim, plenty of retailers will soon be cutting prices on tech and other products we might use for work in order to boost their margins and clear stock before a new financial year.

Here, we look at some of the common work items you’ll see marked down in this year’s EOFY and clearance sales and explain how you may be able to claim these, along with work-from-home costs, as tax deductions.

On this page:

• What you can claim
• Laptops and tablets
• Smartphones
• Wireless routers and Wi-Fi mesh and extenders
• Printers
• How to claim working from home costs

What you can claim

Unfortunately, tax deductions aren’t exactly free money and don’t equate to a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement in your tax refund.

Instead, they help reduce your taxable income, which is the figure the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) uses to determine how much tax you owe for the year.

More deductions leads to less taxable income, which can mean you’ll owe less tax.

Costs you’ve had to pay to do your job count as deductions, but must meet the ATO’s three golden rules:

1. You must have spent your own money on something that directly relates to you earning an income.
2. You can’t have been reimbursed by someone else.
3. You must have a record of your spending, such as a receipt.

The good news is, if you buy an item for work (and not for running a business) and it costs $300 or less, you can claim the full amount as a single deduction in one tax return.

If you buy something that costs more, such as a laptop, you won’t be able to claim it all in one go.

Instead you’ll have to claim a proportion of the cost each year as the item depreciates in value over its lifetime.

The ATO has guides on how you can do this using one of its two recommended formulas, or you can use its , but in any case, you’ll have to keep track of the product’s original value and its effective life.

The tax office sets guidelines for how long various items are meant to last that you can use in your calculations (two years for a laptop, for example).

It’s important to note that the amount you can claim can be affected by whether you also use an item for personal reasons or to run your own business.

This rule applies whether the expense is less than $300 and you’re claiming it all in one year, or if it’s more and you’re deducting depreciation over several years.

For more info on how to work this out, see the ATO’s or consult a tax professional.

For straightforward work expenses, the in the ATO app is also a useful resource for keeping track of costs you incur throughout the year that you might want to claim later.

What you can’t claim

The tax office often sees people trying to slip through outlandish claims in order to reduce their tax and says it’ll be paying close attention to work-related and working-from-home deductions this coming tax season.

It’s previously uncovered attempts to claim air fryers, TVs and $10,000 in luxury clothing and accessories by people for whom these purchases had little to do with work.

While few of us could claim we need these products to do our jobs, sometimes you do need to splash out on the latest entertainment or kitchen appliances – even if it won’t be a tax deductible purchase.

For advice on these products and more, check out ĚÇĐÄVlog product reviews.

Laptops and tablets

These work-from-home essentials are a regular fixture among EOFY bargain stock and grabbing one before the end of June could help end your tax year with a decent deduction.

“Retailers tend to have good EOFY deals, but most manufacturers also offer good prices if you buy directly from their websites,” says ĚÇĐÄVlog tech expert Peter Zaluzny. 

“For example, brands such as Lenovo, Dell and HP typically have some sort of EOFY sale.”

Once you’ve found a retailer offering good deals, think about what you’ll be using your device for and consider older models on clearance before throwing your cash at the latest releases.

“You can save a bit of money by opting for a slightly older laptop released in the last couple of years,” Peter says. “You probably won’t notice much of a difference between a slightly older model and a newly released one if you’re just emailing, browsing and streaming video.”

But Peter warns against letting your search for a bargain draw you too far into a brand’s back-catalogue. “Windows 10 laptops will no longer receive essential security updates as of October this year,” he warns.

“If you’re looking at an older or second-hand laptop, make sure it either comes with Windows 11 or is Windows 11 compatible.”

If you’ve managed to score a model you can use for work for less than $300, you can claim it as an immediate deduction.

However, it’s no secret that most laptops (including those recommended by ĚÇĐÄVlog) will sell for more than $300, even with an EOFY discount applied.

Therefore, it’s likely you’ll only be able to claim the depreciation of the device this financial year, but this could be more than $300 if you’ve bought a high-end device.

For more advice, see which sort of laptop will work best for you and get the lowdown on the best performers with our laptop and tablet reviews.

Smartphones

Buying a new phone you’ll mostly use for work? You can claim a percentage of the cost at tax time in accordance with the method outlined previously (depending on the percentage you use it for work versus personal use).

Here, as with laptops, going too far back in time comes with pitfalls.

Some older phones that have been refurbished after being used overseas may not always work in Australia, so make sure any model you buy can run off the networks servicing your area. shows you how to do this.

Once you’ve found a suitable phone, it’s important to consider if it’ll meet your requirements for battery life, camera quality and providing other functions, such as serving as a Wi-Fi hotspot for other devices.

We consider these metrics and more in our latest smartphones review and have further advice on how to buy a good smartphone.

Wireless routers and Wi-Fi mesh and extenders

If you’re setting up to work from home, you’ll of course want all your gadgets working quickly and reliably.

If you’re struggling with slow internet speeds, an old router might be the culprit – our guide to the latest Wi-Fi technology will help you confirm if this is the case and to understand what you should be buying to get the speed you deserve.

Read our guide to find a top performing router under $300 so you can claim the total cost as a tax deduction this year.

But even the best equipment has its limitations – for example, most routers have a range of around 50 metres in line of sight – obstructions like walls and furniture can shorten this.

If you want a stronger signal at the edge of your Wi-Fi range, an extender or mesh network is what you’re looking for. See our latest review of wireless mesh networks to understand what could work best in your home.

If you’re considering a new internet service provider, check out our review of broadband providers.

Printers

These office mainstays often feature in EOFY markdowns, and having one on deck can come in handy, depending on your work.

But printers are also notorious for their high running costs – especially the cheaper models, some of which we’ve found consume colossal quantities of costly ink.

Therefore, while the cheapest printers might be tempting, beware of inefficient models and think about how much printing you’ll actually be doing.

If you regularly run off documents at home, an ink-efficient model with a higher purchase price may work better for you, as it’ll keep your ongoing costs lower.

But if you only print from time to time, a cheaper printer could suffice, as you won’t be buying new cartridges very often.

To get a read on which models deliver the best print quality and how much each will cost you annually in ink, see our printer reviews.

How to claim working from home costs

If you work from home, you can also claim any extra costs resulting from you spending more time in your house.

The ATO allows you to claim a flat rate of 70 cents per hour that you worked from home, to cover the extra use of things like electricity and gas, as well as internet data, stationery and computer consumables, such as printer ink and paper.

Alternatively, you can calculate the actual cost you’ve incurred (in case it’s more than 70 cents per hour or you want to factor in depreciating assets), but this will require lots of number-crunching and record-keeping.

If you’re making these sorts of deductions, you’ll need records of how many hours you worked from home and evidence you paid for the extra strain on your home facilities.

For specific information on how to process your working at home deductions, see the ATO’s .

Know the products to avoid before you shop. Get our free guide and buy smarter.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post Tech at tax time: What you can claim to boost your return appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Last year, however, after reading news reports of AustralianSuper’s reinvestment in big coal companies, she wrote to her super fund to express her concern and to try to get some answers. 

“I would sign petitions, write emails and things like that. Responses would come back months later, copy and paste responses that didn’t address any individual issues raised,” she says. 

In the last 12 months, AustralianSuper have backflipped on their 2020 divestment from Whitehaven coal, purchasing shares worth around $400 million and becoming the largest single shareholder in the company. 

AustralianSuper tells us they remain committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but activist groups such as Market Forces say that is simply “greenwashing” given Whitehaven’s massive coal mining expansion plans around Australia. 

“AustralianSuper is greenwashing by suggesting that its massive stake in Whitehaven is consistent with its climate commitments,” Brett Morgan, senior superannuation funds analyst at Market Forces says. 

Cate felt the same. 

“I didn’t get the response I wanted to hear when I inquired about fossil fuels. Eventually I just decided there was no hope here and voted with my money.” 

Cate moved her around a quarter of a million dollars out of AustralianSuper to a fund she felt more ethically aligned with. In a world of confusing fund names and labels and competing claims, it’s a move few Australians make and one that advocates say could be about to get harder. 

Treasury consulting on new sustainable labels 

The federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has instructed Treasury to come up with a new labelling scheme for financial products. The idea is that clearer, better defined and common rules for using terms such as “green”, “environmental” and “sustainable” will unlock greater levels of green investment from private capital, in line with the federal government’s Net Zero goals. 

Submissions on the Sustainable Financial Product Label Policy Framework closed in March and Treasury has yet to announce their next steps or what direction the policy will take. 

Super Consumers Australia’s Susan Quinn says one proposal is a “loose and principles-based” disclosure scheme that could lower the threshold for the quality of evidence required to substantiate sustainability claims and make greenwashing harder to detect and enforce. 

“No doubt the super funds’ marketing teams would love it. But it would make things even harder and less certain for people who are navigating green claims by super funds. And it could seriously undermine the effectiveness of anti-greenwashing laws that we already have,” she says. 

Industry advocates say the proposed changes won’t help

In the last two years, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has taken major high-profile legal action against a number of super funds for greenwashing. In 2024, Mercer was ordered to pay over $11 million by the Federal Court for misleading customers and Active Super copped a penalty of over $10 million for greenwashing misconduct in 2025.

Quinn says these recent actions show that the current system is already working to prevent greenwashing and that Treasury’s new labelling proposals are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and may make it easier for the super funds to get away with greenwashing. 

“People who are interested in green investment have been shocked to find out that their supposedly sustainable super is still sitting in fossil fuels or other things that are big no-nos for them. Super funds could do so much better to help people understand what their sustainable products really are. A start would be to just be open about all the companies they’re invested in,” she says. 

She says it’s hard to see how a loose labelling scheme is going to make the general public’s understanding of what these products mean better. 

“We keep seeing funds do things like apply ‘tolerances’ for fossil fuel investments. So they’ll still invest in a company that makes money from fossil fuels, as long as it’s below a certain portion of the company’s revenue. Then they’ll slap a ‘sustainable’ label on the super product. This means lots of disclaimers in the fine print and we want to see regulators do more to clamp down on it,” Quinn adds.   

Industry backs reforms 

While industry advocates are skeptical of the proposed changes, those within the superannuation industry have a different perspective. Louise Davidson, CEO of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, which is the peak body representing industry super funds, says the Council supports the Treasury consult’s principles of improving customer understanding. 

“It’s a very complex area, and we would like to see product innovation continue. There’s a balance but we think there is an opportunity to leverage existing laws and also enhance the information available to retail investors and superannuation members to minimise both complexity and compliance burden,” she says. 

Criteria must be scientifically-based

Katarina Thompson, the acting managing lawyer at the Environmental Defenders Office, takes a balanced view, agreeing that a new labelling regime could be positive, but with the caveat that it has to be “done right”. 

“Changes could be really positive, as long as the regime is robust and any criteria used to verify the financial products are scientifically-based,” she says. 

She says the current way of operating is far too complicated for consumers, who have to investigate and interrogate products to understand what super funds are doing with their money, even when they claim to be in “green” or “ethical” fund options. 

“There is a lot of vague language and language that is not necessarily backed up by publicly available, independently verified science being used in the superannuation space. That is really problematic for consumers’ ability to check the veracity of the claims being made. There is a lot of room for improvement,” Thompson says. 

 Concerns that the new scheme might mislead consumers

However, advocates remain concerned that the proposed idea of introducing “thresholds” for what level of a product’s investments can be not aligned with environmentally sustainable investments is a worrying precedent. 

One of the proposals being considered by Treasury in the consultation is that investment products with less than 30% exposure to unaligned investments be considered to meet the threshold to use certain sustainability labels. 

“Any product claiming ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ labelling should not be exposed to companies expanding fossil fuel production, not at all, in any way,” Brett Morgan from Market Forces says. 

Quinn says the government needs to conduct independent testing to gather evidence about what Australian consumers think and expect each of these environmental labels to mean and make sure the new scheme abides by these expectations. 

“We’re concerned that the super industry is trying to shape a labelling regime that works for them, not the people it’s really supposed to benefit. There’s a big disconnect between what people at super funds think is sustainable or green, and what millions of people across Australia think,” she says. 

“If the government forges ahead with a labelling scheme without rigorous consumer testing built in, it’s pretty much guaranteed to enable more greenwashing,” Quinn adds. 

A spokesperson for Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ office says ensuring markets and consumers have clear and credible information on climate and sustainability, including in superannuation, will be key to achieving net zero. 

“Our government has always taken a consultative approach on these issues, which is why we have recently consulted on options to make sustainable financial products easier to understand and assess,” they say. 

Get the inside story on our investigations into consumer rip-offs and bad business practices.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post Superannuation greenwashing is rife: Will a new labelling system make it worse? appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Around this time she saw a Facebook ad for an investment opportunity. The timing seemed perfect; this was her chance to grow her nest egg. 

The problem was that the so-called investment opportunity was actually a set-up for a scam. At the insistence of the scammer, who groomed her over a period of weeks, Betty withdrew $5000 from her superannuation account every day for over a month and fed the money into cryptocurrency. Betty hadn’t heard of cryptocurrency, and had never traded in crypto before the scam.  

In the end, she lost a total of $140,000 to the scam. Nobody from her superannuation fund spoke to her or raised concerns about the suspicious transaction pattern. 

Meg Dalling, assistant director of policy and campaigns at Consumer Action Law Centre, which provided support to Betty, says her case “goes to the heart” of a major gap in superannuation. 

“For people who are retired, it’s just far too easy to get your money out of your retirement fund and move it to a complete scam,” Dalling says. 

“We’ve seen the banks step up their efforts to prevent scams, but super funds are really far behind. I think one of the issues with the super funds is there’s typically not a lot of engagement with customers.”

Experts are warning of a giant “honey pot” for scammers to target over the coming years, with Australia’s aging population and trillions of dollars moving into the retirement phase of superannuation, where funds are much easier to access. 

While the federal government has released a new scam prevention plan, advocates say it doesn’t include what’s needed to make sure superannuation is safe in retirement. In fact, obligations on super funds to protect their members from scams are not included in the government’s plan at all. 

How big is the issue?

Australians over 65 reported the highest level of scam losses of any age demographic to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) ScamWatch service in 2025, losing $89 million.

They were the most likely to lose money to investment scams, romance scams and other major scam types. 

That age category is particularly relevant for superannuation, because when someone is over 65 they can move their funds into the retirement phase, giving them far greater capacity to make withdrawals with minimal restrictions. While this allows flexibility, it also means far fewer checks and queries.  

‘Significant gaps’ exposed in anti-scam protections

In February, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sounded the alarm and called for immediate action from superannuation trustees to strengthen anti-scam protections. 

The call came after an ASIC review of scam- and fraud-related information and support on 47 super funds websites, which the regulator compared against website content from the big four banks. ASIC found “significant gaps” in communications and member support from super funds. 

“Super funds often lacked clarity, accessibility, and support for scam victims. When benchmarked against other industries, super funds fell short for victims,” ASIC Commissioner Simone Constant says. 

“Super funds have a clear and unavoidable responsibility to oversee risk and ensure these emerging threats are identified and managed actively.”

No national data on super scams

No government department or regulatory body, including the National Anti-Scam Centre, collects data on how much money is lost to scammers each year that originated from superannuation accounts. 

Because money is transferred from superannuation into a person’s bank account first before it’s taken by scammers, it’s not being captured as a superannuation scam.

The “Report a Scam” form to ScamWatch doesn’t even include a superannuation option or any way for someone to indicate that superannuation was lost in the scam either directly or indirectly.

The ACCC says it undertakes “comprehensive searches of multiple Scamwatch data fields to determine when such reports relate to superannuation schemes”. However, this relies on an individual proactively sharing this information in the details of their report.

Lily Jiang, director of advocacy at Super Consumers Australia, says that because there is no national reporting, nobody knows how big this issue is, adding that it’s likely to only get bigger. 

“Over the next 10 years, we’ve basically got the biggest ever number of people retiring in Australia, about 2.5 million Australians. They will have the highest superannuation balances going into retirement that we’ve ever seen, we are talking about $1.5 trillion,” she says. 

“However, super funds remain asleep at the wheel. Super is the honey pot, but it’s currently the weakest link in the financial services system when it comes to scams and a system is only as strong as its weakest link,” Jiang says.

Scam Prevention Framework doesn’t cover super funds

Sitting down with ĚÇĐÄVlog and Super Consumers Australia at his office in the western suburbs of Melbourne, federal Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino highlights the government’s Scam Prevention Framework and the increased obligations that will be brought on businesses to comply with scam protections. 

The bill, which passed parliament February 2025, gives the government powers to designate sectors of the economy that have to comply with sector codes and increased efforts to monitor and prevent scams. 

So far the government has announced plans to designate social media platforms, telecommunications companies and banks. Superannuation is not on the list.

“This is not going to be straightforward work, it’s actually work which is cutting edge and is a world leading framework,” Mulino says. 

When asked why the decision was made not to designate superannuation under the framework, Mulino says designating three sectors at the same time was already going to be “quite complex”. 

“We’ll continue to look at whether or not the scams framework needs to expand,” he adds. 

Mulino’s ministerial predecessor Stephen Jones had said in November 2024 that the superannuation industry was “on notice that they will be fast followers” when it came to designation under the framework. 

We sent follow-up questions to Minister Mulino’s office about whether that position had changed; the reply was that there “isn’t any change” from the former Minister’s position.

Banks bear all the responsibility

Kathryn McKenzie, director of operations at the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission, says the agency often works with banks that proactively bring them cases of older scam victims seeking support.

She cites the case of a man with signs of dementia who successfully withdrew $150,000 from his super and was about to lose it all to scammers when his bank stepped in and blocked the transaction. 

“They are proactively looking for warning signs and acting on them before money is lost,” she says of the banks. 

Patricia Sparrow, chief executive officer of Council on the Ageing, says super funds should be made to meet the same accountability standards as other financial institutions. 

“Super funds also need to play their part in the broader scam prevention system, including taking steps to identify scams where legitimate transfers from super to a member’s bank account are later used for fraud,” she says.

A multi-layered solution would be more effective

Mulino also pointed out that in most instances the superannuation withdrawal will go to the member’s own bank account before being lost to a scammer, providing the banks, who are regulated by the prevention framework, an opportunity to catch, query and potentially prevent the suspicious transaction. 

But Jiang from Super Consumers Australia says a “multi-layed approach” would be far more effective. 

“The issue with that approach is that we are funneling all the risks and responsibilities into one part of the system (the banks), as opposed to trying to improve every part of the system where the money is being moved from point A to point B,” she says. 

“The banks are good at understanding their customers in a banking environment, but it’s the super funds who need to understand how their customers engage with the retirement system and use their retirement accounts,” says Jiang. “The banks have zero visibility of this information, it all sits with the super fund – they should be responsible for catching it from the start.” 

A spokesperson for the Super Members Council says funds are taking positive steps to proactively strengthen scam prevention measures. 

“The next critical step is to promote greater consistency across the sector, ensuring that members receive a comparable level of protection, friction, and escalation regardless of their fund. This is particularly important for high-risk transactions and for members identified as experiencing vulnerability,” the spokesperson says. 

Jiang adds it will take time for super funds to properly invest in stronger anti-scam protections and member support, but it’s vital that the government sends clear signals to industry now that firmer compliance obligations are coming soon. 

*Not her real name

The post The government needs to protect our retirement savings from scammers appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Most of us expect to maintain our standard of living when we retire. To do this, we need to know how much to save to last us through retirement.

Super Consumers Australia has done the calculations for you.

What are retirement savings targets?

Super Consumers Australia’s Retirement Savings Targets are an independent tool to help people start working out how much they need to save for retirement. The targets are based on:

• your age
• whether you are single or in a couple 
• how much you want to spend when you are retired.

These targets show how much super you’ll need to sustain your desired standard of living until the age of 90, assuming you own your home outright or don’t pay rent or a mortgage and receive the Age Pension you’re entitled to. 

In fact, the income levels quoted are mostly comprised of the Age Pension at the low income level, are a mix of both super and the Age Pension at the medium level and are mostly made up by your super at the high level.

How we calculated the figures

Spending

We calculated the housing and non-housing spending of homeowners from the ABS Household Expenditure Survey. This is a survey of what everyday Australians spend across different income levels. We made sure they are relevant to you today by adjusting these amounts to today’s dollars by using the ABS Household Expenditure data from the latest National Accounts to incorporate a change to the bundle of goods that households are spending on, and using the ABS Age Pensioner Living Cost Index to adjust for changes in prices. 

Superannuation savings 

We modelled the ups and downs of investment returns over time and calculated a superannuation balance that you need at the start of your retirement to be 90% sure that, even given uncertain investment outcomes in retirement, you’ll have income from your super and the Age Pension to cover your spending needs each year to age 90. After age 90 you’ll still have access to the full Age Pension. 

We estimated how your super would grow by looking out how it grew over the last 25 years, playing out thousands of different versions of events that could occur in the future. 

Be guided by satisfaction rather than aspiration

We use real spending data reported by a cross section of Australians to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The low amount is the equivalent to what people in the bottom third spend each year on living costs, the medium is what people right in the middle spend and the high is what the top third spend. 

In our 2025 survey, 90% of retirees who own their home said they were satisfied or neutral about their financial situation, reinforcing that actual spending data is a reliable benchmark to help you understand what you might spend once you retire.

Find your own target

It’s worth remembering we designed our targets to get people more engaged with retirement planning. These numbers are just the first step on your journey to preparing for life after work.

The next step is to get a more personalised picture of what you need to save and how to reach your goals.

To figure out your own retirement spending and savings targets, there is a free, independent online resource called Moneysmart that can help. You can also talk to the government’s Financial Information Service over the phone on 132 300, or seek independent financial advice. 

Step 1: Do a budget

Put together a budget to find out how much you will likely need to spend in retirement using the . 

Step 2: Find your current superannuation balance

You can find your current superannuation balance on your annual member statement from your super fund, or by logging into your super fund’s website or app. You can also find your super balance on MyGov.

Step 3: Predict your retirement income

Some super funds give you an estimate of your retirement income on your annual statement, or when you login to your super fund’s website or app. If your fund doesn’t do this, you can estimate your retirement income using the .   

Step 4: Check if you are on track

Compare your budget to your predicted retirement income. Many people will find they are on track or close to it.

If you’re not, there are still steps you can take, like finding a better performing fund, making additional contributions to super, including downsizer contributions from the sale of the family home as you approach retirement.

Also, once you retire, you can access additional income from the equity in your home via the government run Home Equity Access Scheme once you’ve reached Age Pension age. 

Some Super funds provide retirement income estimates

If you don’t want to use an online tool, you may also find that your superannuation fund has done calculations for you. 

Some superannuation funds provide an estimated retirement income on your annual member statement and on their app. If you are lucky enough to be in one of these funds, then this number gives you a useful starting point for your retirement planning. 

Unfortunately not all of the superannuation funds provide this. At Super Consumers Australia we think they should. The Government has drafted guidance to superannuation funds suggesting that they should provide this information to their members.

We continue to fight to make it required for superannuation funds to help their members with this personalised estimate of retirement income.

The Age Pension makes a big difference

We assume retirees receive any Age Pension they’re eligible for. The amount you receive affects how much superannuation you’ll need:

• Low-level spenders: ~90% of income from the Age Pension
• Medium-level spenders: ~70% from the Age Pension
• High-level spenders: Mostly self-funded, with the Age Pension providing more support as you age

You can check your Age Pension eligibility on the .

Independent figures matter

Our targets are independent and based on what actual people spend. They’re not produced by a super fund or industry body with a financial interest in encouraging higher contributions.

Tough for retired renters

For free and independent information:

• If you’re struggling with debt, contact the on 1800 007 007
• Visit or the 

The post 2026 retirement savings targets for homeowners: How much do you need to retire? appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.