Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Albanese Labor government's recent budget provide cost-of-living relief to older Australians, including pensioners? And has there been any opposition to providing this relief?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:26): I thank the member for her question. Of course, cost-of-living relief has been the No. 1 priority of this government. We recognise the pressures that are being felt by older Australians, particularly those on the age pension.

Of course, the inflation that we inherited was double what it is now—double what it is now. The pension of course is part of our social contract; the promise that we make to people who have built this country, to look after them in their retirement. That's why, in the recent budget, we guaranteed age pension indexation and strengthened assistance to pensioners. We maintained the freeze on deeming rates until 30 June 2025, helping some 450,000 age pensioners. We have frozen PBS medicine co-payments for pensioners so that the most they will pay is $7.70 per script. We have increased the Medicare levy threshold so that low-income seniors will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy. We have given every Australian household, including pensioners, $300 in power bill relief and around 200,000 pensioners will receive an increase in their rent assistance following from last year's increase in rent assistance. And we're providing $2.2 billion to strengthen aged-care services.

I am asked: is there any opposition to this? What are the barriers? The Leader of the Opposition has called this spending 'reckless' and 'useless'. The shadow Treasurer says that it's wasteful. They're promising tax breaks for people with hundreds of millions of dollars in super but they think helping pensioners is a waste of money—a waste of money! Never forget what they did the last time that they came into office: the 2014 budget tried to increase the pension age to 70 and tried to cut the pension indexation rate. Along with their energy supplement cut, that meant each pensioner would have lost $724.

Those opposite like talking tough but, in the end, they always pick on people who are doing it tough. Those opposite want young Australians to raid their superannuation and make them more reliant on the pension in their old age, and then they want to raid the pension and make it harder for them to rely on it. That's their idea of balance: a trapdoor at both ends.