Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:09): I thank the member for her question, through the Acting Prime Minister. What might be worth explaining to the individuals you have described is the situation that exists at the other end of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Of course, at the end that you are talking about, 91 per cent of all of the families that are completely unaffected by what we describe we would do are in the private sector—and yes, they are families, often, that work in Coles or Kmart or the like. What might be worth explaining to the kind of person you have described is: why is it fair that that person would be possibly having access to 10 weeks of their own employer scheme and then eight weeks of the government scheme— Opposition members interjecting— Mr PORTER: and yet someone on a median income of $71,000—on a median or average family income of $147,000; indeed, a civil servant who might earn $140,000—can get 18 weeks from their employer and an additional 18 weeks through the taxpayer? I might also say to that person that you, shadow minister, have said on a number of occasions that the median income of the mothers who would be affected by the government's proposed policy is $43,000. And you have done that deliberately, on a number of occasions, to scare all of the mothers who will absolutely not be affected. Where you have said, for instance in your press release, member for Jagajaga, 'women who will be worse off on a median income of $43,000'—where you have said that, on a number of occasions: that is the median income of the mothers who are not affected at all by what we are suggesting! Not only have you unhitched your wagon from the truth, you have taken a fact and deliberately misstated its opposite to try and scare mums into believing they would be affected when they would not be. The SPEAKER: The members for Sydney, Shortland and Griffith will cease interjecting.