Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:08): I thank the member for her question. We have been through this before in this place. The particular supplement that the member for Jagajaga refers to— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER: Member for Jagajaga! Mr PORTER: which is a savings measure of the government, is also a savings measure that they have banked. It is money that they have already spent. But they come up here in yet another fantastic example of double-think and criticise a savings measure that they have banked, saved and spent. Let's just have a look at how this happened. In fact, the member the Jagajaga described the measure relevant to her question today in a press release as an 'unfair cut that Labor would oppose'. But how do you oppose a savings measure as unfair when, at the 2016 election— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER: Member for Jagajaga! Mr PORTER: you accepted and agreed to the savings measure, banked the savings measure and spent the money? If we go back to Labor's fiscal plan, at page 30, there is an incredibly long and precise list of every single measure that we presented as a savings measure which the members opposite said that they would reverse. They go measure after measure after measure, but one of the measures notably absent is the measure she is now asking a question on, which they agreed to, which they banked and which they spent. But then, as we have noted, opposing and supporting the same measure is now pretty much standard practice for the member for Jagajaga. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The minister has the call. Mr PORTER: As we have noted, opposing and supporting the very same measure is now pretty much standard practice for members opposite, particularly for the member for Jagajaga. As we have noted before, the member for Jagajaga opposed changes to the pensions and assets test for months in the lead-up to the March 2016 election while she was also taking signatures on a petition opposing the measures that they were also supporting. Weeks after they had agreed to the pension asset changes, she was still collecting signatures. Labor supported the closing of the carbon tax compensation at the 2016 election but now opposes the same policy today. They support and oppose the same policy at the one time. How is that even possible as a matter of rational, common sense? What they do now is get up here and accuse us of making a savings measure, which they also supported and which they have also banked on. It might also be noted that this government has just allocated $260 million as a one-off payment to pensioners. They will get $260 million to cope with electricity prices. Do they support or oppose that? Do they support and oppose it at the same time? Or do they oppose it, then support it and then oppose it again? Make no mistake, the thing they now complain about is the very thing they have already banked, saved and spent.