Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:42): The member for Jagajaga raises the issue of the energy supplement. What is fascinating about the member for Jagajaga raising the issue of the energy supplement and the savings that would be garnered for the federal budget by virtue of that removal— Ms Macklin interjecting— Mr Morrison interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga and the Treasurer will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. Mr PORTER: is that the member for Jagajaga was part of a team that had already made that saving, banked it and spent it. One needs only to look directly at the Labor Party's fiscal plan in its election document. In that, there is a very long list of what are known as 'reversals', on page 30. The list of reversals is long; but there is one thing suspiciously absent from the list of savings reversals, and that is the energy supplement. What then happened was the Leader of the Opposition was asked about the energy supplement and about Labor's fiscal plan. He said in an interview that the Labor position on savings measures after the 2016 election would be 'consistent with what was in the fiscal plan before the election'. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting. Mr PORTER: And was Labor's fiscal plan before the election saving the energy supplement, banking it and spending it? It absolutely was. Is the position now consistent? That is absolutely anyone's guess. But what the member for Jagajaga does is get up here and criticise the government for making a savings measure which Labor has made, banked and already spent. And, in the process of doing so, the member for Jagajaga criticises the fact that the energy guarantee has the capacity to deliver savings each year, from 2020, of up to $115 a year. Now, the criticism of that is that it's not enough. In fact, Senator Dastyari tried to make that criticism today with a cheeseburger. I understood he was more of a Chinese food aficionado! But the fact is that $115 a year as a potential saving to Australian households is actually significant. It mightn't be significant to members opposite, who prefer Chinese food and fine Chinese restaurants, but a potential $115 saving a year is very significant. It is absolutely significant when you compare it with the potential cost increases in the average electricity bill that will occur if you try to put $66 billion worth of taxpayers' money into subsidising renewables—which members opposite also say don't need subsidisation because they are competitive as it is. (Time expired)