This exclusion entrenches lower lifetime savings before workers even turn 18 as the earlier workers can start saving super, the greater their compound returns will be. Maintaining this carve-out undermines the integrity and fairness of the system.To rectify this, the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to prevent regulations from excluding employees based on age or hours. It further repeals paragraph 11(f) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 2018, which is the specific provision currently enforcing the 30-hour threshold for minors. The intended effect is to ensure that superannuation is paid from the "first dollar earned" [Explanatory Memo page 2], aligning the treatment of young part-time workers with that of the broader workforce.
The primary argument for this bill is one of fundamental fairness: workers performing the same labor should receive the same entitlements, regardless of their age. The current 30-hour threshold creates a discriminatory tier in the labor market where young people—often in their first jobs—are denied a standard workplace benefit [Judgment]. By removing this threshold, the bill ensures that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" extends to retirement savings.
From a utilitarian perspective, the long-term benefits of early superannuation contributions are significant due to the power of compound interest. Even small contributions made at age 15 or 16 can grow substantially over a 50-year working life, significantly improving retirement outcomes and potentially reducing future reliance on the age pension [Judgment]. As the explanatory memo notes, early contributions play an "important role in improving retirement outcomes" by maximizing the duration of investment growth.
While the goal of increasing retirement savings is noble, this bill may have unintended negative consequences for youth employment. By increasing the cost of hiring workers under 18 by the current super guarantee rate, the bill makes young, inexperienced workers less competitive in the labor market [Judgment]. Small businesses in the retail and hospitality sectors, which are the primary employers of teenagers, may respond by reducing shifts or hiring older, more experienced workers instead.
Furthermore, there is an epistemic concern regarding the administrative burden versus the benefit. For a teenager working a few hours a week, the quarterly superannuation contribution might be very low. The administrative cost to the employer to manage these accounts, and the risk of these small balances being eroded by fees or lost in multiple accounts, suggests that the policy may not achieve its intended utilitarian outcome efficiently[1] [Judgment]. From a propertarian standpoint, this represents an unnecessary and burdensome imposition on the capital of small business owners for negligible individual gain.
While legislation exists to protect small balances from fee erosion, the proliferation of multiple small accounts for transient young workers remains a significant systemic inefficiency.
2026-08-12
Senate
Before Senate
POCOCK, Sen Barbara
Unspecified
Labour, Social Support / Welfare, Financial Regulation