Mr SWAN (4:25 PM) —Only a few short years ago we had a bipartisan agreement in this country that our elderly deserved dignity, security and support in their old age. People who had worked all their lives believed that retirement would be a reward for making the country great and that, in return, the country would respond with policies that provided them with the security they craved. Unfortunately, this has been fractured. Starting with the introduction of the new nursing home policies over four years ago, the withdrawal of funding from nursing homes, the withdrawal of funding from public hospitals, the huge cuts that have taken place to the dental program, right through to the outrageous breach of faith that we have seen in the GST compensation package, the Howard government has fractured and dishonoured that service, that tradition, that fundamental Australian belief. Many now believe that this parliament no longer honours their life work. That is how they feel. They feel they have been deserted by their parliament. Far too many now believe that retirement is turning into a nightmare, not a reward. Far too many people believe that their living standards are declining, that rising prices, shortages of nursing home beds and completely inadequate public services are ripping away at that essential security that they crave.

No issue more demonstrates that breach of faith than the government's handling of the aged pensioners and self-funded retirees bonus. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister went round the length and breadth of this country saying that everyone over 60 would have $1,000. We need to remind people of what the Prime Minister said because he has denied in this House that he said it. Very clearly, right through the campaign, he implied that everybody would be getting $1,000. On radio 6PR in Perth on 25 August 1998 he said:

At the Carseldine Retirement Village in Brisbane on 18 August 1998 he said:

On A Current Affair on 13 August he said:

Was this a core promise? Yes, it was a core promise. The fundamental thing about all of those promises was that there were no ifs and no buts. But the crime continued. It was not only before the election campaign that the Prime Minister created this impression: it also occurred after the election campaign. In a booklet distributed in September 1999 entitled The new tax system—here is what you need to know, which went to every home in this country, it was stated that there would be:

Before the election campaign he was absolutely emphatic. After the election campaign, right through to last September, there was no mention of any of these conditions.

Mr Anthony —Have you read the fine print?

Mr SWAN —Yes, Minister, there was plenty of fine print, but it only came after September. It was hidden. The citizens who should have been eligible for this bonus are up in arms. They have rung our offices and have written literally tens of thousands of letters about this issue. I would like to read briefly from one letter written by Mr Frank Griffiths to Dr David Kemp. I quote:

And so on. The letter continues:

That is what all of these people believed—that they would all be entitled to the bonus. In his letter Mr Griffiths says:

He concludes:

Like all of the elderly in this country he has been whacked by the combination of price rises and inadequate compensation. He goes on to say:

That was Mr Griffiths to Dr Kemp. There have been literally thousands of these letters written to members of parliament and to newspapers all around the country. Unlike the answer given at question time today by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the numerous inaccurate answers given by the Minister for Community Services, the truth is that Mr Griffiths is not alone. Nothing could better demonstrate just how out of touch this government is with the needs of older people in this country than the fact that it appears to be completely unaware that tens of thousands of people have been dudded by this sham bonus.

I would like to provide some facts and figures. The government's own figures show that 43 per cent of people in the eligible age group get a dollar or less; just 1.75 million of them will receive a dollar or more in compensation; and that leaves more than 1.3 million older Australians with less than a dollar in compensation. When many people applied for this bonus they were told by Centrelink on the instructions of this minister, the Minister for Community Services, that Centrelink would make it easy to claim and they would not have to provide any personal or income details to make their claim. Many people who were entitled to the bonus have not received it because they were incorrectly assessed by Centrelink. When we continually raised this matter in the parliament and around the country and put pressure on Centrelink to reassess them, this minister said that they should go to the expense of putting in an application to the tax office. What did we find out in question time today? The tax office has run out of forms. How incompetent! How negligent can you get! But we did raise the pressure on government so that eventually they were forced to instruct Centrelink to reassess many of these people. The only thing was that they did not want to tell anyone that Centrelink was going to reassess these people. They have got millions of dollars to spend on partisan political advertising around this country, but when people out there may be eligible for a bonus they won't spend a cent on telling them how they can go to Centrelink and get the correct amount.

What does all this mean? The issue of the savings bonus demonstrates three fundamental points about the Howard government. The first is its arrogance and its base ingratitude. No group in the community has provided the government with stronger electoral support than the elderly. Despite many loyally voting conservative for years and years, this government has imposed double taxation on their life's work and put forward a compensation package that leaves many substantially worse off. Secondly, it reveals the government's preparedness to deceive and mislead, and use any amount of public funds to hide its deception. Finally, and most significantly, it demonstrates the fundamental problem with this government, the fundamental problem with the GST, the fundamental problem with its inadequate compensation package, the fundamental problem with its funding of schools, and so on. It is that this is a government that continues to be strong on the weak and weak on the strong. That is what the elderly in this country are repudiating.

Sadly, this approach on the savings bonus is not new. Particularly, it is not a new approach for this Prime Minister. He has form. Old habits die hard. History shows that the Prime Minister is a serial offender when it comes to dudding the elderly in this country. It goes back as far as 1977 when he was the Treasurer in the Fraser government. He denied pensioners an increase in pensions for over a year by taking away their annual indexation. This was the period when he got the tag `Honest John'. `Honest John' was meant to be an ironic expression. He is continuing that approach now all the way through. It is happening to the elderly of Australia again and again. During the Fraser government, pensions fell substantially below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, down to 22 per cent. Under this government, despite their commitment to maintain pensions at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, they have dropped below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Through that drop the government have dudded each pensioner in this country in excess of $200. They have been out there pilfering the handbags of pensioners, imposing harsh cost cuts and breaking their promises to keep pensions at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. This approach has continued when you look at the GST package and at the rest of the compensation arrangements.

There is something really funny when it comes to the Prime Minister and the elderly. Why is it that the elderly bring out the tricky dicky in John Howard? Why is it? When we come to the four per cent pension increase that is supposed to compensate the elderly for the impact of the GST, we find that it is a dud. What do the government do? The first thing they do is take $10 off every full pensioner in the country in their first pension payment, despite the fact that all of the glitzy advertising said `a full four per cent up-front increase'.

Mr SWAN —Minister, you took $10 off every pensioner in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! You will address your remarks through the chair.

Mr SWAN —The minister also promised that he would keep pensions ahead of prices. All of the advertising said, `Prices are going to go up, but don't worry about that because the pensions will go up in advance of prices.' Well, minister, this is a fallacy; in fact, it is a lie. The government's own budget papers prove it. The fact of the matter is that pensioners are behind the inflation rate. The four per cent increase is coming through, and the future increases are coming through, months after the impact of the actual inflation so pensioners are continually behind. We have had another great lie. The full four per cent increase will be taken away next March. It will be turned into a two per cent increase. You have gone out there and told pensioners they are getting a four per cent increase and what a great deal it is, neglecting to mention—just leaving it down there in the fine print—that two per cent of that will be taken away next March.

That brings me to the deeming rules. This goes back to a crime committed in the first period of the Howard government, where you deemed the first $2,000 of pensioners' savings. That was money that most pensioners have kept for emergencies, usually for a funeral. And you were so lousy—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The chair was not lousy.

Mr SWAN —The Howard government was so lousy that it deemed the first $2,000 of a pensioner's savings. Now we have got to the latest outrage. The National Australia Bank, the most profitable bank in this country, recently announced a cut to its deeming rate of 0.08 per cent, which can cost some pensioners up to $50 in pension and up to $110 in lost interest. This minister said in the House, `That's fine. That's okay. Let the banks do what they like. Let them steal the money from pensioners and take it away and set the example to all of the other banks to drop their deeming rates.' That is what the government has said. If it is okay for the NAB, it is going to be okay for the Commonwealth Bank and it is going to be okay for Westpac. That is what happened when the government deemed the first $2,000, because the banks are not paying the right deeming rate on the first $2,000. Now that is going to happen to tens of thousands of pensioners with their subsequent savings.

So it does not matter where you look: when you look at the record of this government you can see that they give the green light for banks to bully pensioners and that they make their decisions on compensation to include taking money from those with the least. That brings us to the fundamental and cardinal principle of this government: the more you have the more they give you and the less you have the less you get. Those opposite come into this House and talk about the need for incentives—but to them that means that higher income earners need incentives and lower income earners need punishment. That is the approach that the minister takes to the Job Network, and it is one that they are now applying across the board, particularly the new zero tolerance family policy which will batter a lot of families in this country and cause a lot of financial problems for many of them.

The latest outrage is rising petrol prices. They have previously dudded all of these people on petrol prices. The Treasurer has the hide to come into the House and say, `Pensioners will not get their inadequate pension increases if we do not keep the promise that we made on petrol.' This is an outrage. The Treasurer then came in and said, `I am going to use the pensioners of Australia as a shield to hide from the criticism that the Labor Party is making over the fact that we have not kept our promise on petrol.' This is a disgraceful approach. The Minister for Community Services and the Minister for Employment Services go around the country pretending that they are passionate conservatives. They are not compassionate conservatives at all; they are cold-hearted conservatives. Because their economic agenda is so harsh they have to go out there and try to erect some new smiley mask to cover up the impact of these policies which are having a fundamental impact on so many low and middle income earning Australians. The notion of a passionate conservative is simply an oxymoron. It is a Trojan horse to cover up this government's dreadful record. (Time expired)