Businesses nearly always assume that if you can do something faster, then that’s better for customers. Whether it’s the ability to order online shopping that arrives the same day, or banks’ claims they can approve some home loans in 10 minutes, we’re constantly told that quicker is best.

Most of us don’t need a 10-minute home loan, of course, but that’s beside the point. Companies are vying to be fastest to beat their rivals – and economists will generally tell you that competition is a great thing.

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Now and then, however, you see examples where faster is not necessarily better, and indeed, where competition can have some perverse effects. The latest case in point concerns us all because it affects the $4.5 trillion superannuation sector that’s set up to safeguard our retirement savings.

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino last week said the federal government may consider throwing some “sand in the wheels” in the regime that allows people to switch super fund, as part of a plan to beef up protection for consumers.

What might he be referring to? Why would you want to do anything that slows down people’s ability to move their own money?

And wouldn’t that go against the grain of generally making it easier for people to move their super around as they see fit, as has happened since 2005 when people were allowed to choose their own fund?

The context is important here. Mulino made the comments while explaining the government’s push to better protect super members from disasters such as the collapsed schemes Shield and First Guardian. These were two managed investment schemes into which about 12,000 Australians had invested, with more than $1 billion lost.

As well as taking a terrible toll on victims, these collapses are shining a light on the........

© The Sydney Morning Herald