Baby boomers are angry at the poor performance of super funds.

Any industry that is guaranteed at least 9 per cent of every Australian's salary is going to become complacent. That certainly seems to be the case with the superannuation industry when it comes to customer service.

Despite $70 billion in voluntary and compulsory contributions being at stake, there seems to be little competition between funds.

Less than 10 per cent of workers actively choose a fund and only 4 per cent of people switch funds each year, with half of this due to people changing jobs or a fund closing.

Maybe fund members are partly to blame; like the funds, they became complacent. While funds were regularly delivering double-digit returns, concerns about customer service were not at the front of many people's minds.

The global financial crisis has changed all of that. Members want to know how their super fund is performing and want it to do the best for them in these difficult times. If the comments and complaints received by National Seniors Australia are anything to go by, a lot of funds have failed to do this.

Members have complained that funds have not kept in touch with them during the financial crisis. One National Seniors member was not contacted by her fund at all and only discovered she had lost a large part of her investment when she called it.

Many funds have launched websites that allow members to track their savings but these are not a lot of use to older people who may not have access to a computer or the internet, or are worried about viewing financial information online. Funds should recognise that different members will have different communication needs and want to be contacted in a way that suits them.

Members should be able to choose between paper and electronic communications and receive at least quarterly updates. Some funds deride this as too expensive and difficult - a sure sign that the complacency of the guaranteed 9 per cent contribution is seeping through.

Another problem highlighted by the global financial crisis is the slow response of some funds to requests by members to switch their investment choice. One National Seniors member saw the economic storm clouds on the horizon in early 2008 and tried to switch his super to a more secure cash option. It took his fund 42 days to make the change. His super lost $12,000.

Surely if funds can offer websites that show returns in real time they can respond to a member's requests within two working days, as some already do.

This case also highlights the failure of Australian funds to take a life-cycle approach to investing, where members' investments are automatically switched from equities to cash and bonds as they near retirement. This approach, common in Britain and the US, would have minimised many older Australians' exposure to the worldwide drop in share prices. The failure of funds to apply a life-cycle approach is another sign of complacency and lack of initiative.

A life-cycle approach is only now on the agenda because of pressure from consumer advocates such as National Seniors. Members are also upset that while the value of their super investment has fallen, fees have stayed the same or even gone up.

Fees have a big impact on the superannuation pot. The Treasury estimates that fees total $14 billion a year of the nation's $1 trillion super savings and take about 1.25 per cent from retirement nest eggs each year.

It is not just the size of fees that upsets people.

The sheer complexity of the fees and the confusing way they are presented make it extremely difficult to compare funds. All funds should use standard terms to describe fees, so members can make accurate comparisons.

This would increase competition between funds and ultimately lead to lower fees.

If people are unhappy with their fund, what can they do?

For most Australians, there are only two choices: they can complain to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal or they can move to another fund. Neither of these avenues seems to be delivering much joy to super-fund members.

Before they can complain to the tribunal, members must go through a fund's internal complaints procedure, or have waited 90 days for a response.

Thinking that taking three months to resolve a customer's complaint is OK is another shocking example of complacency in the industry.

Even when the tribunal makes a decision, its powers are limited.

It could not have taken action on any of the complaints raised in this article, as it does not deal with issues such as lack of communication, delays in switching investment choices or high fees.

There is obviously a need for a streamlined and more effective complaints process that gives the tribunal greater powers to deal with a wider range of complaints.

Ultimately, members can move to a different fund if they are unhappy with the level of performance or service they are receiving.

Funds are supposed to complete rollovers to new funds within 30 days.

National Seniors has learnt of rollovers that have taken anything from five months to almost a year. Moving between funds should be made easier. The global financial crisis has thrown the spotlight on super funds, not just in terms of their returns but also how they deal with their members.

The current Cooper Review into the nation's superannuation system is a chance to shake the super industry out of its complacency and make it more competitive and responsive to the needs of fund members.

Michael O'Neill is chief executive of National Seniors Australia, a non-profit, independent voice for seniors.