QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Social Services) (15:02): Thanks so much to the member for Lalor, who is a fierce advocate for her local community. Of course, as a Labor government, we want people who can work to work. It's good for them.

It's good for our national productivity, and, thanks to the strong economic management of this prime minister and this treasurer, we've seen more than 1.1 million extra jobs created since we came to government. We've given every taxpayer a tax cut, and those workers on a minimum wage have seen a pay bump of around $9,000 a year since we came to government. But, when people can't work or when they've retired, of course we want a social security system that allows them to live with dignity.

From 20 September this year, more than five million social security recipients saw a boost in their payments. That includes almost 20,000 people in the member for Lalor's seat—age pensioners and jobseekers. The changes that came into effect on 20 September mean that someone on the full age pension got about an extra $30 a fortnight.

That means that an age pensioner is about $5,000 a year better off since Labor came to government. A jobseeker is about $4,000 a year better off since we came to government. Commonwealth rent assistance has increased.

It has gone up by almost 50 per cent, and that means about an extra 1,800 bucks a year. Of course, that builds on cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, fee-free TAFE, five per cent deposits, a 20 per cent cut to student debts and a whole range of other cost-of-living measures. But we know what would put all of this at risk.

Those opposite would, because last time they were in opposition they promised no change to pensions nine times, and they came to government and they tried to cut the pension by $80 a week and raise the pension age to 70. And now the Leader of the Opposition has actually said that she would look at pension eligibility, indexing programs more smartly and capping demand driven programs.

What does that mean in practice? We've seen what it means because they've tried it before. Are they going to cap eligibility for demand driven programs like paid parental leave?

Last time they called working mums 'rorters' and 'double-dippers'. Are they going to try and cut the pension, as they tried to do last time by slashing indexation? Those opposite need to come clear with the five million Australians that rely on social security and the 180,000 paid parental leave recipient families every year.

What are they going to do? Are they going to cut eligibility? Are they going to slash indexation?

Who's going to miss out? We're focused on delivery; they're focused on cuts.