ATO Draft Ruling SGR 2026/D1: What It Means for Venues, Agents and Entertainment Platforms

By Ned Walker, Founder & CEO - Hot Giggity | July 2026

Key takeaways: The performer super rules have not suddenly changed. Draft Ruling SGR 2026/D1 is mainly about a different question: when a venue, agent, platform and performer are all involved, who is actually responsible for the super? The answer does not automatically depend on who transfers the money. You need to look at who hired the performer, who contracted with them and who is legally responsible for paying them.

If you have been following the recent discussion about performer super, you have probably seen people confidently saying completely different things.

Some say nothing has changed.

Some say every platform is now the employer.

Others say whoever pays the invoice must owe the super.

No wonder everyone is confused.

The truth is more straightforward than much of the online discussion makes it sound.

The long-standing performer super rules still matter. Draft Ruling SGR 2026/D1 deals mainly with a separate issue: identifying the employer when work is arranged through an agent, platform, labour-hire business or another intermediary.

In plain English, it is trying to answer one question:

When there is someone sitting between the hirer and the performer, who is actually responsible for the super?

Why Everyone Is Confused

There are two different conversations happening at the same time, and people keep mixing them together.

The first question is:

Does this performer or related worker attract super?

That question is largely dealt with under the existing performer rules, including Section 12(8) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.

The second question is:

If a venue, agent, platform or other third party is involved, who actually has to pay it?

That is the issue SGR 2026/D1 is mainly trying to clarify.

They are connected questions, but they are not the same question.

If You Only Read One Thing

The performer super rules have not suddenly changed.

This draft ruling is mainly about identifying the responsible party when there is an intermediary involved.

Ask two questions:

Who hired the performer?

Who is legally responsible for paying them?

What Is SGR 2026/D1?

On 17 June 2026, the ATO released Draft Superannuation Guarantee Ruling SGR 2026/D1.

The draft looks at arrangements where a worker performs services for one business, but another business sits between them.

That might be:

• a labour-hire company
• a payroll company
• a booking agent
• an entertainment platform
• a promoter
• another business that contracts with both sides

These are sometimes called tripartite arrangements, but there is no need to get stuck on the legal term. It simply means three parties are involved:

• the person doing the work
• the business receiving the work
• the intermediary in the middle

In live entertainment, that could be an artist, a venue and an agent. Or a player, an act owner and a venue. Or an artist, a venue and a payment platform.

The draft ruling looks at how to work out which party is the employer for super purposes in arrangements like these.

It does not say that the person who presses the payment button is automatically the employer. It also does not say that every agent or platform is automatically responsible.

The answer depends on the actual legal arrangement.

The Easiest Way to Think About It

Forget the legal jargon for a minute.

Start with two simple questions:

1. Who hired the performer?

Who made the booking?

Who entered into the agreement?

Who had the legal right to require the performance?

2. Who is legally responsible for paying them?

Who owes the performer the fee under the agreement?

Would that party still owe the performer if someone else in the chain failed to pay?

Who is named as the hirer or payer in the booking terms?

Most of the time, these questions will point you towards the responsible party.

The important distinction is between:

who moves the money

and

who legally owes the money.

Those are not always the same person.

These are starting questions rather than a complete legal test, but they will usually help you identify where the responsibility is likely to sit.

Five Things the ATO Says Matter

1. Start With the Contract

The first place to look is the agreement between the parties.

Who contracted with the performer?

Was the booking agreement directly between the venue and the artist?

Did the agent sign on behalf of one of the parties?

Did the platform enter into a separate agreement with the artist?

Did the act owner engage the individual players?

The draft ruling focuses on the legal rights and obligations created by those agreements.

That does not mean every arrangement needs a 20-page legal contract. Bookings can be formed through emails, platform terms, accepted worksheets and other records.

What matters is what the arrangement actually creates.

A contract that says the venue hires the artist directly is different from a contract where a platform hires the artist and separately sells the artist's services to the venue.

2. Calling Yourself an Agent Does Not Make You One

The ATO is not interested only in the label a business gives itself.

A company might describe itself as:

• a booking agent
• a platform
• a marketplace
• a payroll service
• an administrative service
• a technology provider

Those descriptions may be relevant, but they do not decide the legal outcome.

The law looks at what the business actually does.

A genuine agent may arrange a direct booking between a venue and an artist without becoming the person who hires or owes the artist.

Another business might call itself an agent while contracting with the artist in its own name, invoicing the venue in its own name and becoming responsible for paying the artist.

Those are very different models.

The simple rule: what you actually do matters more than what you call yourself.

3. Who Actually Has to Pay the Artist?

This is one of the most important questions in the draft ruling.

Who is legally liable for the artist's fee?

For example:

• If the venue directly hires the artist and owes the fee, the venue will usually be the obvious starting point.
• If an agent hires the artist in its own name and becomes responsible for the fee, the agent may be the relevant party.
• If a platform contracts directly with the artist and promises to pay them, the platform may have taken on more than an administrative role.
• If an act owner engages and pays individual players, the act owner may be responsible for those players.

The fact that money passes through a particular bank account is not enough on its own.

A business can process a payment on behalf of someone else without becoming the employer.

On the other hand, a business cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by calling itself a payment processor if its contracts show that it actually owes the performer the money.

4. A Genuine Agent Is Different From the Hirer

A genuine booking agent may introduce the parties, negotiate the booking and administer the paperwork while still creating a direct agreement between the venue and artist.

In that arrangement:

• the venue hires the artist
• the artist performs for the venue
• the venue is legally responsible for the performance fee
• the agent helps administer the booking

The agent does not automatically become responsible simply because it prepared an invoice or helped arrange a payment.

But the position may be different where an intermediary:

• contracts with the performer in its own name
• contracts separately with the venue
• promises to supply the performer
• becomes legally responsible for paying the performer
• controls the commercial payment flow as principal rather than as agent

That business may be doing much more than introducing or administering the booking.

The draft ruling makes it clear that every arrangement needs to be considered on its own facts.

5. Companies, Trusts and Partnerships Change the Analysis

Entity type still matters.

If the genuine booking agreement is with a company, trust or partnership rather than the individual performer, the person hiring that entity will usually not pay super directly to the individual performer.

The entity may have its own super obligations to the people working through it.

The key word is genuine.

Putting a company name on an invoice does not fix an arrangement if the real agreement is still with the individual.

The contracts, booking records, invoices and payment arrangements should all tell the same story.

Why Section 12(8) Still Matters

Some commentary about SGR 2026/D1 has made it sound as though the draft ruling changes the performer super rules.

It does not.

Section 12(8) remains the special performer provision that can treat an individual as an employee for super purposes where they are paid to:

• perform or present
• participate in a performance or presentation
• provide services connected with a performance

That can include musicians, DJs, entertainers and some related workers whose services are required for the performance to happen.

An ABN, an invoice or the label independent contractor does not automatically remove the super obligation.

SGR 2026/D1 does not substantially examine Section 12(8). It focuses mainly on identifying employers in intermediary arrangements under the broader employment tests.

For live entertainment, the two questions are therefore:

1. Is the individual covered by the performer super provisions?

2. Which party is legally responsible under the actual booking arrangement?

You need to answer both.

What This Means for Live Entertainment

If You Are a Venue

Do not assume that using an agent or platform automatically transfers your super obligations to that business.

Start with the booking arrangement.

Did the venue hire the performer directly?

Is the venue legally responsible for the artist's fee?

Is the agent simply administering the booking?

Where those answers are yes, the venue may still be the responsible party.

But where the venue contracts only with an intermediary, and that intermediary separately hires and pays the performer, the result may be different.

The important thing is to know which model you are actually using.

If You Are a Booking Agent

Be clear about whether you are acting as an agent or as the principal hirer.

A genuine agent may create or administer a direct booking between the venue and performer.

Another agency may contract with the performer itself, invoice the venue and then pay the performer under its own obligation.

Both models can exist, but they have different consequences.

Your contracts, booking worksheets, invoices and payment records should clearly show which model applies.

Do not rely on the word agent by itself.

If You Are an Act Owner or Band Leader

The question is usually who has engaged each player.

If the act owner receives the full act fee and then hires and pays the individual musicians, the act owner may be responsible for the players' super.

If each player is directly engaged by the venue or agent, accepts their own allocated fee and is paid directly, the hirer may be the responsible party for each player.

This is why the contract and payment model for multi-player acts matters so much.

A single invoice from an act owner and separate per-player bookings are not the same arrangement.

If You Are an Artist or Player

Ask who you are actually contracting with.

Is it the venue?

The booking agent?

The act owner?

The platform?

Do not assume the answer based only on where the payment comes from.

Look at the booking confirmation, accepted terms, invoice and any agreement you were given.

Those records should make it clear who hired you and who is responsible for your fee.

The Payment Chain Question

This is where it gets important for anyone using an entertainment platform.

Not all platforms handle payments the same way, and the payment chain matters more than most people realise.

There are three questions every venue, agent and artist should be asking:

1. Who controls the payment flow?

Does the hirer pay the artist directly? Or does the money go to the platform first, and the platform then splits and distributes the performance fee and super?

When a platform collects the full payment from a venue and then sends the performance fee to the artist and the super to the artist's fund, the platform is doing more than providing technology. It is sitting in the middle of the payment chain.

That does not automatically make the platform the employer. But it does raise a question about the role the platform is actually playing.

2. Whose employer details are sent with the super?

When a super contribution is submitted, the SuperStream contribution data identifies the employer associated with that contribution.

The contribution data should identify the employer associated with the contribution, not simply the technology provider that transmitted the payment.

If a platform processes the super on behalf of another party, the employer identified in the SuperStream data should be consistent with the party responsible under the actual booking arrangement. If the contribution data identifies a different party from the one responsible under the booking arrangement, the records may be inconsistent.

This matters because:

• The contribution data forms part of the records connecting the employer, performer, contribution and super fund
• If the contribution is late, the party legally responsible for the SG obligation may still face the Superannuation Guarantee Charge, even where another provider controlled or transmitted the payment
• The contribution records should be consistent with the booking and the party identified as responsible for the contribution

If the booking says the venue hired the artist, but the contribution data identifies someone else as the employer, those records are telling different stories.

3. Who actually processes the super?

Superannuation payment services can involve financial-services and SuperStream requirements. A platform should be able to clearly explain whether it processes contributions through an independent clearing-house provider, what role that provider performs, and what licences or regulatory arrangements support the service.

If a platform is collecting super from venues and forwarding it to an artist's fund, it is worth understanding what regulatory framework supports that process.

Before using any platform for super, it is worth asking:

• Does the platform process the contribution through an established clearing-house provider, and can it clearly explain the provider's regulatory status?
• Which employer is identified in the SuperStream contribution data sent with the payment?
• If the platform handles the payment, who bears the risk if something goes wrong?

A platform that can clearly answer those questions is operating transparently. One that cannot is worth questioning further.

What the Draft Does Not Say

• It does not say every platform is the employer.
• It does not say whoever transfers the money automatically owes the super.
• It does not remove the existing performer rules.
• It does not make labels more important than contracts.
• It does not give one answer that applies to every venue, agent or platform.

Two Platform Models Compared

Two platforms may appear to offer the same service while using completely different payment and compliance models.

Model A: The Platform Administers the Booking and Super

The venue or agent hires the artist directly.

The platform records the booking, calculates the super and collects the artist's fund details.

The super is sent through an independent clearing-house provider. The employer identified in the SuperStream contribution data is the actual hirer.

The platform does not collect or hold the commercial payment. The hirer remains in control.

In this model, the platform provides technology and administration without taking control of the commercial performance-fee payment.

Model B: The Platform Controls the Payment Chain

The venue pays the full amount to the platform.

The platform splits the payment: performance fee to the artist, super to the artist's fund.

The platform controls or initiates the distribution of both the performance fee and the super amount.

In this model, the platform is sitting in the middle of the payment chain. The questions then become:

• Which employer is identified in the SuperStream contribution data?
• Does the platform process contributions through an established clearing-house provider with appropriate regulatory arrangements?
• If the platform delays or fails to forward the super, who is exposed to the SG Charge?

That does not automatically mean the platform is the employer. But the more a platform controls the payment flow, the more important it becomes to understand who is actually responsible and whether the compliance chain is properly set up.

Why We Built HG Super Pay This Way

Long before this draft ruling was released, we made a conscious decision that Hot Giggity should not sit in the middle of our customers' commercial payments.

Hot Giggity helps venues, agents and act owners:

• create the booking
• record who is paying whom
• calculate the correct super
• collect the required super fund details
• track what is owed
• send the super through an independent clearing-house provider

But Hot Giggity does not become the buyer or seller of the performance. The venue, agent or act owner remains responsible under the booking model they have chosen.

That matters because it keeps three things aligned:

• the party that hired the performer
• the party legally responsible for the performance fee
• the employer identified in the SuperStream contribution data when super is submitted

The super is processed through an independent clearing-house provider that operates under its own Australian Financial Services Licence. The employer selected for the contribution is included in the clearing-house submission. The hirer stays in control.

The draft ruling did not cause us to redesign that model. It reinforced why clarity matters.

Multi-Player Acts

Bands and ensembles are where the difference between booking models becomes especially important.

Act Owner Pays the Players

Under a traditional model:

• the venue pays the full act fee to the act owner
• the act owner engages the players
• the act owner pays each player

In that arrangement, the act owner may be responsible for the players' super.

Hirer Pays Each Player Directly

Under Hot Giggity's per-player model:

• each player is identified on the booking
• each player accepts their allocated part of the gig
• the hirer becomes responsible for each allocated performance fee
• each player is invoiced and paid separately
• super is calculated for each eligible player

This can create a much clearer line between the hirer and each performer.

The important point is that separate invoices alone are not enough.

The booking acceptance, agreed fee, legal responsibility and payment records all need to support the same arrangement.

Read more: Multi-player Act Super Solved.

What You Should Do Now

1. Identify the actual hirer. Who made the agreement with the performer?
2. Identify the legal payer. Who owes the performance fee under that agreement?
3. Check the performer's entity type. Are you dealing with an individual sole trader, company, trust or partnership?
4. Check whether Section 12(8) may apply. Do not rely on an ABN, invoice or contractor label.
5. Review your booking terms. Make sure the paperwork reflects the way the arrangement really works.
6. Ask about the payment chain. If you use a platform, understand whether the super goes through an independent clearing-house provider and which employer is identified in the SuperStream data.
7. Keep the records aligned. The booking, invoice, payment and super reporting should tell the same story.
8. Get advice where the model is unclear. This is particularly important where an intermediary controls the payment flow.

The Draft Is Open for Comment

SGR 2026/D1 is still a draft.

The ATO has invited comments until 31 July 2026.

For the live entertainment industry, one of the most important areas needing further guidance is how the intermediary principles interact with Section 12(8) and with the growing number of platforms that control the payment chain between hirers and performers.

The full draft ruling is available here:

SGR 2026/D1 on the ATO Legal Database

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this draft ruling change the performer super rules?

No.

The existing performer provisions, including Section 12(8), remain in place. The draft focuses mainly on identifying the employer in arrangements involving intermediaries.

Does whoever transfers the money automatically owe the super?

No.

The payment flow is relevant, but it does not decide the answer by itself. The key question is who is legally responsible for the performer and their fee.

How can I tell whether the platform I use creates a compliance risk?

Ask three questions: Does the platform control the payment flow between the hirer and artist? Which employer is identified in the SuperStream contribution data? Does the platform process contributions through an established clearing-house provider with appropriate regulatory arrangements?

If the platform cannot clearly answer those questions, it is worth investigating further.

Does an agent owe the super?

Sometimes.

A genuine agent that administers a direct contract between venue and performer may not be the responsible party. An agent that hires the performer or assumes the legal obligation to pay them may be.

What if the artist has an ABN?

An ABN does not automatically remove a performer super obligation.

The entity type and actual engagement matter.

What if the artist operates through a company or trust?

If the genuine contract is with that entity rather than the individual performer, the hirer will usually not pay super directly to the individual. The entity may have its own obligations.

Does HG Super Pay make Hot Giggity the employer?

No.

Hot Giggity does not hire the performer or become responsible for the commercial performance fee. It helps the responsible venue, agent or act owner calculate, track and process the super under their booking arrangement. The super is sent through an independent clearing-house provider, and the employer selected for the contribution is included in the submission.

Is the ruling final?

No.

It is a draft and may change before it is finalised.

So, Who Actually Pays the Super?

There is no single answer that applies to every arrangement.

But there is a clear way to work through it.

If you are a venue, do not assume that using an agent or platform automatically transfers the obligation.

If you are an agent, be clear about whether you are administering the booking or becoming the hirer.

If you are an act owner, be clear about whether you or the venue is engaging each player.

If you are an artist, understand who you are actually contracting with.

If you use a platform, understand how the payment chain works, which employer is identified in the SuperStream data and whether an independent clearing-house provider is involved.

Then come back to the two questions:

Who hired the performer?

Who is legally responsible for paying them?

That is the clearest starting point for understanding SGR 2026/D1.

Want to See How HG Super Pay Works?

If you are a venue, agent or act owner looking for a simpler way to calculate, track and pay performer super without handing control of your commercial payments to a platform, we would love to show you around. Learn more on the HG Super Pay product page.

Book a Demo

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax or financial advice. It discusses the ATO's Draft Superannuation Guarantee Ruling SGR 2026/D1, which may change before finalisation. The correct outcome depends on the contracts and circumstances of each arrangement. Readers should obtain independent professional advice before making decisions about superannuation obligations or compliance. Hot Giggity Pty Ltd accepts no liability for actions taken based on this article.

About the Author

Ned Walker is the Founder & CEO of Hot Giggity. A professional musician since 1994, Ned has performed in covers and original bands across three continents, including as a member of JJJ Unearthed-winning band Shifter. He ran boutique booking agency Walker Artist Management in London before founding Hot Giggity in 2016 to build the platform the live entertainment industry was missing. Ned holds a Bachelor of Commerce in Marketing and Information Technology and has led sales and marketing teams in Australia and Europe.

Related reading:

• Payday Super: What Every Venue, Agent and Act Owner Needs to Know
• Multi-player Act Super Solved
• Super for Performers: Common Misconceptions and What the ATO Actually Says