SUPERANNUATION

Ask Paul: My employer wants $4500 of my super back

2
Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share on LinkedIn

By

A 68-year-old worker was shocked when her employer demanded she repay $4500 in super contributions made while she was on workers compensation leave. Is she really required to hand the money back?

Dear Paul,

I am a 68-year-old woman still working part-time.

68-year-old worker Sheryl tells Paul Clitheroe she was shocked when her employer demanded she repay $4500 in super contributions made while she was on workers compensation leave. Is she really required to hand the money back?

I had intended to work until the age of 70.

I work as a phlebotomist for a private pathology company. I retrained at 52, having started working at the age of 16.

Unfortunately, I have been on workers compensation for the past 12 months and cannot perform my daily duties.

My company has demanded I refund $4500 of the superannuation guarantee (SG) paid by them to my super account since I went on workers compensation leave.

The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 states that anyone receiving weekly compensation payments who is over retirement age is not entitled to the SG.

This discrepancy needs to be addressed.

In my case I have very little superannuation. I funded four eye operations, have multiple chronic illnesses now, and became a single mum at 40.

This and not being able to work full-time have all contributed to a low superannuation balance - $4500 is a lot of money to me.

The overpayment is their accounting system's fault.

Do you think I should pay this amount? What can be done to change this Act? It is discrimination against older workers. Why?

I hope you can highlight this problem for older workers. - Sheryl

Paul Clitheroe's response

I am very sorry to hear about your situation, Sheryl, and particularly upset by your company demanding the repayment of the $4500 paid by them into your super fund, seemingly in error.

As an investment person, the complexities of workers compensation and super contributions are way out of my area of expertise.

But I fully get your point about the treatment of workers above the age of 67 and discrimination towards older workers.

In terms of repayment, I would have thought your employer would have at least taken your health and situation into account.

I'd suggest you take a look at seeking advice from Legal Aid. I think it would also be worth getting in touch with the Fair Work Ombudsman.

I'd provide contact details, but this is an issue governed by each State and Territory. A list of contact information can be found online at the Fair Work Ombudsman.

In terms of changing this bias against older workers, at Money we are pleased to be able to highlight this to our readers.

You may have done this already, but I would also encourage you to email your local and Federal member.

What to read next

Get stories like this in our newsletters.

Related Stories

TAGS
,  , 
2
Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share on LinkedIn

Paul Clitheroe AM is the founder of Money and serves as the publication's editorial adviser. One of Australia's most trusted personal finance experts, Paul has spent decades helping Australians build wealth, manage debt and make smarter money decisions. He is widely known for host­ing the Money TV program and authoring best-selling personal finance books. Since launching Money in 1999, he has played a leading role in delivering practical, independent financial guidance to Australians. Paul is chair of InvestSMART Financial Services. He was the founding chair of Ecstra Foundation, a national not-for-profit focused on improving financial wellbeing, from 2018 to 2026, and led the Australian Government's Financial Literacy Board and Financial Literacy Australia from 2004 to 2019. In academia, Paul is chair in financial literacy at Macquarie University, where he is also a Professor in the School of Business and Economics. Ask Paul your money question. Due to volume, Paul cannot respond to questions posted in the comments section.
Comments
Mark Mollenhauer
August 6, 2026 9.40am

There are a few important points worth raising here.

First, how long has Sheryl actually worked for this company? If she's been a loyal employee for decades, it's pretty rough to suddenly demand she repay money that their payroll system incorrectly sent to her super.

Second, does her super fund include Income Protection or TPD insurance? Many workers don't realise these insurances can sometimes be accessed when they can't return to work due to injury or illness. It's worth checking - especially after 12 months on workers comp.

Third, what's the realistic outlook for Sheryl returning to work? If her doctors believe she won't be able to resume her duties, then she may already meet the criteria for retirement or medical release, which changes her options.

And at 68, Sheryl may now be eligible for the Age Pension or at least a part pension, especially if her super balance is low. That could give her some financial breathing room while she navigates this mess.

Finally, the bigger issue remains: why are older workers treated differently under this Act? If the employer made the error, and the worker had no control over the payments, it seems unfair to demand repayment from someone already dealing with injury, illness and financial strain.

These are exactly the kinds of cases that highlight why the legislation needs review - older workers deserve clarity and fair treatment, not penalties for administrative mistakes.

Richard Piech
August 6, 2026 7.35pm

Worst for the lady above, the $4500 will have been taxed at 15%, that is $300 tax is gone. The employer should plead their case to the super fund about the "error".