There are $2.6 trillion in the superannuation accounts of Australians and nearly 10 per cent of everyone's wage rolls in the door annually.

Ten days of royal commission hearings were devoted to the sector. Even though that was like rubbing a finger on a semi-trailer as it rushed past, plenty of muck came off.

The prospect of criminal charges against NAB and the Commonwealth Bank over the way they treated their superannuation customers is no shock to anyone who dipped into proceedings.

If you sat in the courtroom through the hearings, like I did, the overall impression was that retail funds use their super accounts as a healthy revenue source, clipping the ticket at every chance.

Industry funds got a touch-up, but sailed through in comparison to the searing examination endured by NAB/MLC, Colonial First State (CBA) and IOOF.

The trustees are legally obliged to act in the best interests of customers. But the conflict of being part of the bank seemed to blind them.

Take NULIS (owned by NAB), which looks after NAB, MLC and other funds. When millions were taken from customers in fees-for-no-service, it assisted the bank to try and keep the funds, by retro-fitting a "service" to meet the legal requirement for the fee already taken.

Take AMP, which looks after the super of more than 2 million Australians. Fees paid to different parts of the business were not even recorded. That is, written down.

When regulator APRA, shamed by a newspaper article about poor returns on cash investments, contacted AMP's trustee, it was the first it knew about it.

The trustee attempted to lower the stratospheric fees but had to apply to AMP for approval. It is still hoping to get the fees cut, but it's no certainty.

'It's not a perfect system'

Counsel assisting the royal commission's recommendations, essentially, suggested that if the structures of trustees "raise inherent problems", legislated change may be needed.

Additionally, not acting in the best interests of members of a superannuation fund should attract civil penalties: not just for the trustee but "shareholders of trustees and any related bodies corporate". That is, the bank.

For industry watchers like Alex Dunnin, the director of research at Rainmaker Group, the changes are not revolutionary.

"Absolutely not," he said.

"All the royal commission is proposing is following what's already legislated for trustees and the fund, making sure they're responsible for them.

"It's some acknowledgement that some of the funds got too complicated — they need to go back and read the legislation. It's not controversial, it's not radical."

During the hearings, commissioner Kenneth Hayne asked Rachel Sansom, AMP's trustee governance director, how the trustee (effectively, her) could fulfil its obligations to customers.

The examination centred around $23 million in fees incorrectly charged to AMP superannuation customers, and just how little control the office of the trustee had in being made aware of the problem, and getting the money back.

Sansom: "… we need to keep working with the parties that we work with to strengthen controls and apply further checks, so we continually evolve what we do and we will continue to do that from this point onwards."

Commissioner: "And how can you do that with a staff of 15?"

Sansom: "Through the outsourcing arrangements that we have in place, the outsource providers are required to act in accordance with trustee obligations."

Commissioner: "No doubt the contract provides that the providers of outsourced information should act properly. Is the trustee in a position where it is able to determine whether the entities to which the functions are outsourced are in truth performing those functions as agreed?"

Sansom: "To an extent, but it's not a perfect system".

Far from it.

"There's nothing wrong with outsourcing functions and tasks … but you can never outsource responsibility," Mr Dunnin observed.

Regulators found wanting

The bank-run funds might not be the only ones set to feel organisational change.

The main financial regulators — the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) — have a double-up with super, so both do little.

APRA has not commenced any court proceedings in the superannuation space in the past ten years. ASIC is about to commence action on the almost $1 billion taken from customers in the fees-for-no-service issues, off the back of a report they released two years ago.

The regulators couldn't even get their stories straight.

APRA told the commission, just before the hearings began, that a statement about the relationship between the regulators was in the process of being drafted. ASIC on the other hand, included the statements and said it was finalised.

As senior counsel assisting, Michael Hodge QC noted: "There is not presently a dedicated conduct regulator for superannuation trustees in Australia." There are 2.6-trillion reasons that should change.

One final note on the regulators.

ANZ got bank tellers to sell investment products, namely super.

The bank's chief risk officer described the risk as "extreme" and noted it could close the bank entirely.

"Regular breaches … would be seen by the regulator as systemic, putting ANZ's licence at risk," the risk officer wrote.

The bank went ahead anyway, getting bank tellers to push Smart Choice Super until ASIC forced them to stop. ANZ accrued $3.6 billion in funds under management, that they retain and continue to profit from.

The fine from ASIC? $1.25 million.