Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:05): As the member for Jagajaga is aware, the welfare bill that we had 10 years ago was about $83 billion. It is presently $154 billion. And just to give some sense of scale and context— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs and the member for Sydney. Mr PORTER: The income tax take in Australia is about $196 billion, so about 80 per cent of everything that is brought in from income tax moves out on welfare. Family tax benefit A and B, together, represent close to $22 billion worth of expenditure every year in the federal budget. The family tax benefit system is the fourth most expensive federal program. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney! Mr PORTER: The bottom line with family tax benefits is that if you are unwilling to exercise some kind of restraint— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Sydney to cease interjecting. Mr PORTER: in expenditure of the fourth largest piece of expenditure inside the federal budget— Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Adelaide that she has been warned! Mr PORTER: if you are unwilling to make reasonable restraint there to pay for things like child care—to make some contribution to returning the nation to surplus—then you will find yourself in a position where you have, in essence, said you have no plan whatsoever for fiscal consolidation. As the Treasurer has pointed out today, what members opposite have is a hint of further savings inside the family tax benefit system. They will investigate further savings. They will not tell anyone what they are. They know they must be made. When they were in government, they took enormous amounts of money out of the family tax benefit system. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting. Mr PORTER: They are pretending in opposition that they will not be faced with the same challenging set of circumstances. The member for McMahon acknowledges that the same types of decisions that this government finds challenging but must make responsibly, they would have to make if they were in these circumstances. The member for McMahon has said, 'We will go to the next election with an alternative vision for the nation, with detailed policy commitments and with savings proposals which will ensure—' Ms Macklin: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. We are asking about grandparent carers. Mr Christensen interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will cease interjecting. Mr PORTER: And again, with respect to a question on savings the government has made, the member for McMahon has said that they will come 'with savings proposals which will ensure that our election commitments are funded and that we have plan for a sustainable budget.' He also said: Not all these savings proposals will be universally popular or will necessarily win us votes. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide, that is your final warning. Mr PORTER: What is fascinating about that statement is that when you look over the list that the Treasurer had raised earlier, there is an enormous number of spending proposals, there is an enormous number of proposals to say 'no' to savings proposals that we have offered—indeed, to say 'no' to savings proposals that those opposite previously offered. But when you look through the list, the reason why it is difficult to find an unpopular savings proposal that those opposite have come up with is that it is impossible to find a savings proposal that they have come up with. After two years, there is one savings proposal.