A perceived consequence of that lack of engagement has been a lower level of accountability on the part of fund managers than might have been expected. Another is a cost structure that is remarkably high, considering the presumed economies of scale involved in the task of overseeing thousands of practically identical accounts.

Since the federal government enacted compulsory superannuation for large numbers of wage earners, the pool of funds under investment in Australia has grown massively to more than $1 trillion.

By 2035 that sum is expected to more than triple, according to Jeremy Cooper, whose recommendations for industry reform have just been published.

Some of Mr Cooper's proposals seem eminently sensible. A standardised basic super account option, tailored for those who don't actively involve themselves in managing their money, is attractive because it would prevent fund managers from charging account-holders for services they never use.

But some other proposals seem odd. Removing collectables from the list of eligible investments in self-managed super schemes, for example, appears to discriminate against some very well-performing asset classes in favour of the less-consistent sharemarket.

Proposals directed at changing the management structure and investment mix of union-linked industry funds are also worth questioning. Industry funds have generally performed better than retail funds, so it's hard to understand why they have been singled out for such attention.

One fundamental aspect of most superannuation funds that does not appear to have been comprehensively addressed is the way in which managers are compensated. The practice of paying on the basis of volume of funds under management - in preference to performance-based remuneration - hardly appears to provide the right incentives.