Question Time AU

General Debate

Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset

House of Representatives · Monday 24 November 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on a motion supporting government reforms to increase the LISTO payment and raise the eligibility threshold. Labor members argued the changes would improve retirement security for low-income earners, particularly women, and correct long-standing inequities. The National Party member opposed the motion's claims, citing superannuation losses from the collapse of First Guardian and Shield as evidence of government failure. An Independent member welcomed the reforms but raised concerns about the lack of indexation for related super tax concessions. The debate concluded with the motion being moved by the Labor member.

Outcome

The motion was moved by Alice Jordan-Baird.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Jordan-Baird moved the motion to acknowledge the Treasurer's announcement to increase the LISTO from $310 to $810 and raise the income threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. Jordan-Baird argued that these reforms would provide greater financial security for 1.3 million Australians, approximately 60 per cent of whom are women. Jordan-Baird highlighted that low-income workers in sectors such as retail, hospitality, and care often face undervaluation and poor pay conditions. Jordan-Baird stated that the reforms would help close the gender super gap and ensure dignity in retirement for those who have served the community throughout their working lives.

Opposition response

Conaghan opposed the motion, arguing that the government had failed to protect superannuation, citing losses exceeding $1 billion for over 12,000 Australians following the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. Conaghan claimed the government ignored warnings from ASIC and buried a Treasury review into managed investment schemes. Conaghan asserted that the government was focused on raiding superannuation rather than protecting it, referencing comments by a state premier. Conaghan stated that the government had not updated the statement of expectations for ASIC and had allowed regulatory failures to persist.