Mr PORTER (Pearce—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (15:40): There was a very interesting moment in the recent UK general election that occurred on 30 April 2015. It was on a television program called Question Time, which I understand has a large viewership over there. Ed Miliband, the then leader of the Labor Party and seeking at that point to become Prime Minister, was asked a question by an audience member. The question was a very simple and straight forward question: do you accept that when Labor was in government it overspent? It was a very good, simple, crisp and straightforward question and it was a question that, to Mr Miliband's credit, he answered in equally crisp, simple and clear terms. He simply said, 'No'. Many of the commentators during the UK election saw this as a completely pivotal moment in the election because what Mr Miliband was in effect doing was defending the completely indefensible. There was not a rational person who did not consider that when Labor was previously in government the UK had spent too much money. So he was either acting irrationally, which does not bode well for a potential prime minister, or he actually believed that Labor was somehow blameless in the debt and deficit situation that was inherited in the UK. He dodged the question when it was re-asked a couple of times. At the end, the same fellow who put the question simply said to him, 'If I get to the end of the week and I cannot afford to buy a pint then I have overspent.' This was a completely pivotal moment. What I find absolutely fascinating about members opposite is that their rhetoric is around two major complaints: they simultaneously complain against almost every item of expenditure restraint that this government engages in— Ms Macklin: That is not true. Ms Collins: That is not true. Mr PORTER: Yes, well, let me then put this to the floor— Ms Collins: Even in the bill you gagged today. Mr PORTER: The most significant piece of expenditure restraint in the last couple of days which has passed through the Senate is that in respect of pensions. Now I fully understand that you have no support whatsoever for that piece of expenditure restraint. Ms Macklin: That is simply not true. What you are saying is— Mr PORTER: That is very interesting. Well you simply did not support it in the Senate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Jagajaga! Mr PORTER: Miraculously, it is one of those pieces of legislation that you support— Ms Macklin interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga! Mr PORTER: in theory but not when it comes to the vote in parliament. It is that sort of support. Ms Macklin: You don't even listen. Ms Collins: You actually do not know what happened. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Franklin and the member for Jagajaga, if you want to remain in this place, you will remain quiet. Mr PORTER: In fact, member for Jagajaga, in failing to support that piece of legislation what you are supporting is a situation where a home-owning couple who are at pension accessibility age can have a home of unlimited value and have liquid assets of $1.15 million and still collect a part pension. What you say by your votes in the other place is that somehow that is a fair outcome. So what you complained about is reasonable, fair expenditure restraint such as that which also allows for 170,000 pensioners to receive more money each fortnight. They are not the pensioners with large, valuable family homes or massive amounts of liquid assets. These are the things that you oppose You oppose rational expenditure restraint and simultaneously complain that the return to surplus is not swift enough. That just does not make any sense. You are living in the 'somewhere' world, where the money will come from 'somewhere' completely unknown to you, in your grand wisdom, and certainly unknown to the public of Australia, because you have never told them. But, somehow or other, on that side of the House there is a miracle pot of money that will return the nation swiftly to surplus, without any difficult decisions around expenditure restraint. That is the pivot position that you have exhibited in the media, in the House, in matters of public importance discussions like this. With matters of public importance like this, you are putting yourself in a position which is absolutely irrational. We can go back to that central question that was asked of Mr Miliband: did you spend too much money when you were last in government? Mr Champion: Did we avoid a recession? Mr PORTER: Maybe we could just ask the first question and answer the first question. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Wakefield has just returned from a detention! Mr PORTER: In asking a second question, you are just dodging the question again. What I find completely fascinating is this notion that comes out publicly that you set yourself a target that expenditure growth would not exceed two per cent a year, when in fact it was 3.6. And it was only ever under 3.6 when you took out all the massive expenditure. So Labor meet their expenditure targets when they do not count their massive expenditure. (Time expired)