Outdated Super Law Costs Teen Workers $411 Million Nationwide, Analysis Finds

Victorian teenagers are the hardest hit, missing out on an average of $735 each as the Greens push for reform

edit
By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources2 outlets
New modelling by the Super Members Council has found that thousands of teenage workers across Australia are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in superannuation due to a law that excludes under-18s from guaranteed super unless they work more than 30 hours a week for one employer, with Victoria the worst-hit state at an estimated $115 million in missed contributions in 2026-27.

The Super Members Council, the peak body representing profit-to-member superannuation funds, released analysis showing that around 156,000 teenage workers in Victoria will miss out on an average of $735 in superannuation this financial year, totalling $115 million across the state. This figure is the highest of any state, with New South Wales workers missing out on $105 million, contributing to a nationwide total of $411 million in foregone super.

Council chief executive Misha Schubert said the law is discriminatory and out of step with community expectations.

“Teenage workers in Victoria are being denied a basic workplace right that 17 million other working Australians enjoy — and that’s just not fair,” Ms Schubert said. “A young person who earns a wage should also be paid super. Yet this outdated and discriminatory law treats teen workers differently just because of their age and their hours.”

The council’s analysis found that 91 per cent of under-18s work fewer than 30 hours a week, the threshold for mandatory super contributions. The average teenage part-time worker could miss out on $2,500 in super by age 18, which could compound to $11,000 by retirement.

“The earliest super contributions matter because they have the longest time to compound,” Ms Schubert said. “Missing out on hundreds or thousands of dollars as a teenager can mean losing much more by retirement.”

A push to reform the law is being led federally by the Greens, who introduced an amendment bill into parliament earlier this month and secured a Senate inquiry on the issue that will report back in November.

“For too long, Australia’s superannuation system has failed young workers. It’s time for young workers to be paid the super they deserve,” a Greens spokesperson said at the time. “The continued exclusion of workers under 18 who work fewer than 30 hours per week is a clear case of legislated age-based discrimination that no longer has any defensible policy rationale.”

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The current law excludes most under-18 workers from mandatory super, costing them thousands in compounding retirement savings
  • Victoria alone loses $115 million annually, affecting 156,000 young people in retail, hospitality, and care roles
  • Missed early contributions compound significantly, with the average teenager potentially losing $11,000 by retirement
  • The Greens have secured a Senate inquiry due to report in November, signaling potential policy change

Background

Australia’s superannuation guarantee requires employers to pay a percentage of wages into employees’ retirement funds. However, under current legislation, workers under 18 are exempt from this requirement unless they work more than 30 hours per week for a single employer. This provision, originally intended to reduce administrative burden for employers of casual or part-time young staff, has drawn criticism as outmoded given the prevalence of part-time work among teenagers and the growing importance of superannuation as a retirement savings vehicle.

Key Perspectives

Super Members Council: Argues the law is discriminatory and outdated. Chief executive Misha Schubert emphasised that young workers doing real jobs in retail, hospitality, and care deserve the same super rights as older workers. The council points to compounding effects that make early contributions particularly valuable. Greens: Leading the federal reform push with an amendment bill and a Senate inquiry due in November. A Greens spokesperson called the 30-hour threshold a case of “legislated age-based discrimination” with no defensible policy rationale. Critics/Skeptics: The article does not quote any opposition or employer groups. Potential concerns from business groups could include increased payroll costs for small employers who hire many part-time teenage workers, or administrative complexity in tracking hours for multiple employers.

What to Watch

  • Senate inquiry report due in November, which could recommend legislative reform
  • Greens amendment bill’s progress through parliament and potential government response
  • Any cost-benefit analysis from Treasury or employer groups on the impact of extending super to under-18s

Sources

newspaper

Zotpaper

Articles published under the Zotpaper byline are synthesized from multiple source publications by our AI editor and reviewed by our editorial process. Each story combines reporting from credible outlets to give readers a balanced, comprehensive view.