AFCA proposes unresolved SCT complaints transferred to ASIC

Why do we have so many bodies such as ASIC, APRA, AFCA all with limited budgets and limited scope. I have been to the lot about my son's Superannuation and Death Benefit being paid to a person other than his nomination and Will by REST. I have asked REST under 10.1 of the SIS Act what the Trustee based the decision on and been ignored by REST. I wrote to APRA and was told I must be given an answer but REST doesn't have to show evidence. I went to ASIC with this and was told (very helpfully and appreciated the input) to write to the misconduct branch of ASIC as under 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 I must be given an answer. I did this and received a letter from the Misconduct Branch of ASIC to say "it has been noted" on the ASIC database. So I went to AFCA twice. Eventually AFCA said it was outside their complaints scope and REST said to answer it would compromise the confidentiality of the person the REST Trustee gave my deceased son's Superannuation and Death benefit to. I still don't know. No marriage, no engagement, no children biological or step, no money between bank accounts, no shared bank accounts or bills and knowing each other around 2 yrs or less. My objective is not about the money. It is about the power over any Australian workers money by these funds which the average worker doesn't know about. It is the arrogance of them saying to me that they will give to whoever they think it should go to and they don't care about the deceased wishes. REST told me my son could have changed his non binding nomination to binding any time online. If that is the Trustee's/REST's rationale then he could also have made this girl his beneficiary at any time but he didn't. REST in a letter told me he should have had a binding nomination but that would have been invalid because we, his parents, were not dependents. REST knew we were his beneficiaries as shown on statements. Australian workers don't know only a spouse, defacto spouse, children, and a dependent person can receive Super and Death Benefits so why are these Funds still taking Insurance from young people with no dependents?? Only because of the BRC are insurance companies which underwrite Super Insurance paying out lately but if the beneficiary is not dependent Insurance companies don't have to pay. Retail Funds (such as Colonial First State) just pay to the nomination and if no nomination they pay to the Will. There is 30% tax on any Super and Death Benefit for a non dependent beneficiary in Superannuation. If you have an insurance policy for death outside superannuation (e.g Real Insurance) there is no tax and it must be paid to the nominated beneficiary. Isn't it better to pay a bit more for Insurance and know who will receive it than have Insurance in Super and it can be taken over by the iron grip of a Trustee who will give it to who he wants to??