Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:25): I thank the member opposite for her contribution. Perhaps the best place to start, for the sake of harmony, is where there is some agreement and, looking over the Labor response today, there does seem to be some agreement at least to some of the savings proposals that the government has placed before the parliament. I refer to the media release that has come out today from members opposite, which notes that: We will not oppose the Liberal’s changes to family tax benefit B for couple families, a saving of more than $500 million. That does represent at least a modest acceptance of a portion of what would have been the overall savings from a fiscal measure over four years of $4.7 billion. They are agreeing to a saving of $500 million, and that saving appears to be, if I can infer, agreed to being fair by members opposite. It is our proposal, and it is one that has been agreed to by members opposite, that for a family, which has been receiving family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B, when the youngest child turns 13 the family tax benefit B would cease. Labor seems to have agreed that that measure is fair in the overall context—we do refer very consistently to the budgetary context that we are in at the moment, and that is something I will return to in a moment—but in effect nothing else in this suite of measures, which is designed to save money, restrain expenditure and pay for child care, is deemed to be fair, but this one thing is. I want to touch on the issue of the schoolkids bonus. Each and every piece of data or cameo that is produced by the Labor Party cites a reduced figure that acknowledges that the schoolkids bonus has been abolished. That was a payment designed by Labor to go to families; it was explicitly linked to the mining tax. So, when the member for Jagajaga states that Labor is protecting families, the real-world question arises: are you protecting the interests of families by continuing to support the payment of a bonus, which is now being paid for by borrowed money? When we find ourselves in a situation of inherited deficits and inherited debt—which is precisely where we are—we are borrowing the money to pay for every piece of growth in expenditure in every portfolio that cannot be restrained. The question arises in respect to something like the schoolkids bonus: are you actually protecting the long-term interests of families by paying them money that in effect is borrowed because we are in debt and deficit. When we came to government we inherited the five worst deficits ever in Australian history—worth $191 billion compounded. We inherited $123 billion in projected accumulative deficits. As I noted earlier, Treasury noted that, if remedial action to save some money and restrain expenditure growth was not taken, we faced at least 10 years of ongoing deficits. What that means for every single child in a family that receives family tax benefit A or family tax benefit B—if there is some form of expenditure inside that system that cannot be restrained and that money is being borrowed—those children will end up having to pay that money back when they are fully fledged members of the Australian taxation system. So you are in effect borrowing money for payments that must be repaid by people when they inevitably enter the tax system. So a child at 13, who becomes a 23- or 24-year-old taxpayer, may well find themselves, without appropriate expenditure restraint, in a situation where they are paying taxes to fund not only the welfare system of their own time but also the welfare system from five, eight, 10, 15 years ago. That is not a fair situation. The only way that situation can be avoided is if there is meaningful restraint in expenditure. That, as I noted in question time, is a very, very difficult process to engage in. What is very notable is that members opposite acknowledge, in principle, that savings have to be made within the budget, that we do have a spending problem. They acknowledge that in principle. The member for McMahon has been intelligently and rationally quite consistent in noting this on a variety of occasions. He even went so far as to say, in a comment he made in respect of the 2014-15 budget at the Press Club on 20 May 2015: Labor does not necessarily object to the quantum of fiscal consolidation in this budget. That is simply a statement that the Labor shadow Treasurer agreed that the type of turnaround that was envisaged in the 2014-15 budget is appropriate. Yet, at some point, that must involve rational, considered savings. Some of those savings will be reinvested in other expenditure measures, as is the case here with sweeping reforms to child care. Some of those savings will contribute to fiscal consolidation and closing that gap between what we spend and what we earn as a nation every year. What appears to happen is that members opposite agree in principle to the notion that you must make savings. They agree with the notion that savings are difficult to make. They agree with the notion that savings proposals will, in the words of the member the McMahon, not be 'universally popular' or 'necessarily win us votes', and yet they do not nominate savings. They oppose a variety of savings. They oppose savings that they themselves suggested should be made whilst they were in government. We heard some talk today about the budgetary black hole that members opposite face. What they have done since we have come to government is oppose or suggest the reversal of saving measures which would total $48.5 billion. They have also proposed $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That would not deliver anything that resembles fiscal consolidation. Is that in the best interest of Australian families? It cannot possibly be in the best interest of Australian families to propose an overall budgetary setting that never sees our nation return to surplus and sees the children of each and every family coming into the tax system with the burden of paying taxes not only to provide for welfare services and infrastructure for their own time but ending up with the debt and the requirement to pay the interest on that debt to service our expenditure today. How is that possibly, on any rational analysis, fair? Mr Danby: Cut other areas. Mr PORTER: This is the thing, isn't it? You have proposed to oppose or reverse $48.5 billion worth of savings. You have promised $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That leaves you with a $59.1 billion problem. You have proposed two revenue measures, which would be $3.8 billion and $1.3 billion at absolute best estimates, which leaves you with a $54 billion problem. That is not a problem that you solve without taking a rational look at different types of expenditure. Unpacking what we have proposed, you are now suggesting that it is fair, rational and appropriate, in the context of the very difficult budgetary circumstances we face, to have a cessation of family tax benefit part B for coupled families but not for single parent families or any other type of families. We agree that, in context, this has to be done—and we will take whatever savings that you agree to, within reason. But, if you are a coupled family who makes a contribution to child care, which will benefit a whole range of families, and also to return the nation to surplus, which is very important for the children of any single family that exists in Australia, you might ask why it is that you should bear a very special burden over a family that is structured in a slightly different way. The reality is that we will have a range of debates about fairness. But, as I noted in question time, the only way to absolutely guarantee that everyone who may be affected in any way by savings measure that they think are unfair is simply not to have a savings measure or to have one and not tell anyone about it. What those opposite have perpetually noted is that there must be savings within family tax benefits. When those opposite were in government, they knew about the budgetary situation that we were in because they chose to move 77,000 single mothers, who were previously grandfathered out, off a parenting payment. They lost more than $150 per fortnight and were suddenly, without warning, without any mitigating spending on training or education and without giving them any time to adjust, forced onto Newstart. You obviously thought that, in the circumstances, that was a very difficult decision. But it had to sit within the context that it is not in anyone's interest that the children of today that graduate into the tax system should end up with debt. (Time expired)