Are employers gaming the $450 SG threshold?
A key parliamentary committee has been alerted to reports about employers gaming the $450 superannuation guarantee (SG) threshold to avoid meeting their SG obligations.
The problem has been raised by seniors group COTA Australia which has used a submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee pointing to reports about employers restricting the hours of low paid employees so the employees will not earn more than $450 a month and will not incur the 9.5 per cent SG.
“That is, the $450 provision creates a structural incentive for under-employment. When this applies to several employers for whom an employee works, the comparative injustice is clear,” the COTA submission said. “An employee earning say $2,690 per month on one part time job will earn over $3,000 per year in super; whereas an employee earning $2,690 per month in three jobs, all earning under $450, will receive no super.”
It said that many had argued that such practices were a particular issue for women and that COTA agreed that there was a disproportionate gender impact.
“COTA submits that this discriminatory clause against one class of workers compared to another is broader than a gender issue. It is an issue of fairness and equity as we outlined above,” it said. “Those many and increasing number of Australians who are employed holding down two or more part time jobs, each of them earning less than $450 a month, deserve to receive the same proportional retirement income that another Australian earning the same overall income from a single employer would receive.”
Recommended for you
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has lowered rates to a level not seen since mid-2023.
Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones has shared further details on the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms including modernising best interests duty and reforming Statements of Advice.
The Federal Court has found a company director guilty of operating unregistered managed investment schemes and carrying on a financial services business without holding an AFSL.
The Governance Institute has said ASIC’s governance arrangements are no longer “fit for purpose” in a time when financial markets are quickly innovating and cyber crime becomes a threat.
