Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (15:40): The Labor Party has run a lot of fear campaigns since we have come to government, but perhaps the worst fear campaign of them all is to suggest to the vulnerable pensioners of Australia that they are going to have their funding cut. We heard it today from the Leader of the Opposition who came into this House and was asking questions of the Prime Minister, implying that pensioners were going to have $80 a fortnight cut from their pensions. It is just wrong. It is absolutely misleading and it is deliberately setting fear amongst pensioners across this country. Nothing like that is going to happen. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. The member for Jagajaga knows that. The member who just spoke knows that as well. It is a deliberate fear campaign, and it is atrocious. The member for Jagajaga said herself that we should not be playing politics with pensioners. She is exactly right, but unfortunately that is exactly what she has been doing. I want to clear up once and for all what has actually happened with the pension since we came to government. What has actually happened is that the pension has gone up six percentage points in the 18 months since we were elected to government. That means, for example, that the pension for a married couple is now $78 higher. The pension for a single is $51.80 higher than what it was when we first came to government. We also know the pension goes up— Ms Butler interjecting— Ms Ryan interjecting— Mr TUDGE: They do not like listening to this. They do not like hearing the fact that the pension goes up each and every year. In fact, it goes up twice a year: in March and in September. It will go up again. This September, next March, the following September— Ms Butler interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left. The honourable member for Griffith is out of her place in this chamber and is disorderly as she interjects. Mr TUDGE: the following March, the pension will go up. Plus we have got rid of the carbon tax but we kept the carbon tax compensation for pensioners. What does this mean? This means there is an additional $21.20 for a married couple per fortnight. For a single it means they have an additional $14.10 per fortnight, which they would not have had had the Labor Party still been in government. Had the Labor Party still been in government, the carbon tax would still be in place. And it would not just be sitting at $23 per tonne, but, according to their own forecast, it was to go all the way up to $350 per tonne. That was their forecast, outlined in their economic documents. But perhaps the worst thing that Bill Shorten was directly responsible for in relation to pensioners was the raiding of their inactive accounts. The member for Kooyong gave a very clear example today of a 92-year-old lady who had her funds raided. For those who are not aware, this is what Bill Shorten oversaw: he said that if there were ever inactive accounts—if an account was inactive for only three years—he would go and grab that money. And do you know what? Within a 12-month period, he took $550 million from pensioners and from other people who had inactive accounts. That is what they did. Bank robber Bill—bandit Bill—took $550 million from pensioners' accounts. I have been asked where that $550 million sits in the scheme of things against the great bank robberies of the world. It is a great question. I did a bit of research and, believe it or not, the great train robbery of 1963 only rated $74 million. So it is well above that. That came in at No. 7. No. 5 was the Knightsbridge security deposit robbery of 1987. That was $200 million in Italy. The British Bank of the Middle East robbery of 1976 was $210 million—which of course was stolen in the middle of the Civil War in Beirut. That came in at No. 4. The Dar Es Salaam bank robbery in 2007 in Baghdad, just after the Iraq war had begun, was $282 million. Bill Shorten comes in at No. 2—only beaten by Saddam Hussein, who robbed $920 million the day before— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The parliamentary secretary will refer to members by their title in this place. Mr TUDGE: I shall. Had Bill Shorten had one further year, he would have— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr TUDGE: Had the Leader of the Opposition had one further year, he would have— (Time expired)