Retirees need help balancing a fear of outliving their savings with the risk of being overly frugal and diminishing their quality of life.

Any "best practice principles" should therefore guide and monitor the design of superannuation products to address retirees’ needs in the drawdown phase.

Products like longevity annuities – which guarantee income in late retirement by only kicking in at a certain age – can offer retirees confidence and stability.

Additionally, drawdown products must be designed keeping in mind the possible decline of retirees' cognitive abilities over time. Simplified, automatic features can help make managing finances easier.

Beyond product design, the new principles should emphasise strong governance mechanisms to ensure that super funds act in the best interests of their members.

Transparent communication and accountability are key, as these issues persist across both the accumulation and decumulation stages.

It has been suggested that the superannuation best practice principles or code of conduct should include a timeframe for responding to claims.

Timeframes are useful but don’t solve all problems. There’s no guarantee claims will be processed free of other unreasonable hurdles and unnecessary friction. Super funds can also explain delays by citing exceptional circumstances.

I would like to see the code of conduct contain an overarching commitment to a positive “consumer duty”, modelled on similar requirements imposed on the financial services sector in the United Kingdom. This would effectively require funds to deliver good outcomes for consumers, including in customer support.

I would also like to see more robust reporting requirements. Super funds should report not just on how well their investments strategies performed, but also how many complaints they received and how these were dealt with.

Crucially, there needs to be more transparency on how well funds are paying out insurance claims, both overall and in a timely manner. It appears a number of funds have not been performing well on this metric. A little “sunlight” can go a long way.

Since its inception, the focus of the superannuation system has been on the accumulation of assets for retirement. Superannuation fund processes and systems reflect this.

The proposed “best practice principles” need to ensure that funds are responsive to members and their needs, particularly at critical life events.

Recent publicity has highlighted the challenges of death benefit payouts. Where a member has completed a binding death nomination, the process of paying out the entitlement should be far simpler than it is.

The nomination form should require enough information for the fund to determine prima facie whether the nominee is a dependant, requiring only confirmation checks to pay out the benefit.

The payout process must be accessible and explained clearly, and the fund should have a dedicated team trained to manage death benefit cases.

Wednesday's announcement by the Treasurer should be viewed with cautious optimism. The ideas proposed broadly make sense, though of course we need to see the detail. Investing in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)'s MoneySmart website and increasing transparency and reporting requirements should benefit retirees.

Nevertheless, we have to ask: how will these initiatives nudge along the many super funds that are lagging in the development of their retirement income strategies?

A complex system requires brave, cut-through policies. At this stage, it is not immediately evident how these announcements – all of which are reasonable – will work to sufficiently accelerate progress.

A more decisive policy action would be to create a retirement licensing regime. It could set minimum standards, force a commitment decision upon super funds, and provide a strong lever for regulators to ensure that every Australian retires into a suitable retirement fund.

Principles-based design in the retirement phase is a welcome signal from the government, as it would have been in the accumulation phase. But the reforms are unlikely to sufficiently address one of the greatest flaws of the superannuation system — inequality.

A favourable bias toward higher-income, higher-wealth citizens, who do not share in the household caring load as much as others, has been baked into the accumulation phase of the superannuation system. This needs to be given greater consideration in the retirement phase.

Principles-led design can be a catalyst for bringing more diverse minds into the process, which is very welcome.

Investment management and risk are further tested with change and complexity in the retirement phase.

One could rightly be excused for being sceptical in thinking that voluntary principles – as have just been proposed – will do enough to change the methods and ethics of the sector for under-served citizens.

Natalie Peng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Jeannie Marie Paterson has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and conducted research for ASIC and AFCA. She is currently working on a project on AFCA determinations with Dr Nicola Howell and Evgenia Bourova. Jeannie Marie Paterson is a member of the research committee of the Consumer Policy Research Centre.

Helen Hodgson has received funding from the ARC, AHURI and CPA Australia. She is the Chair of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW). Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council in WA from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. She is a Registered Tax Agent and a member of the SMSF Association, CPA Australia and The Tax Institute. She is a member of Unisuper

Geoff Warren is a research fellow at The Conexus Institute, a not-for-profit research organisation focused on improving retirement outcomes for Australian consumers. The Conexus Institute has previously produced a green paper advocating the adoption of a retirement licensing scheme.

Di Johnson has received research funding in the past from the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC), and contributed to projects partly funded or supported by financial planning industry partners. She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, an academic member of the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA), a member of the Academy of Financial Services (AFS), and the Economic Society of Australia (ESA) including the Women in Economics Network (WEN).