Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:35): The basis of the question is fundamentally wrong. We are absolutely committed to higher education reform and we will continue with higher education reform. It is absolutely the case that it continues to deliver savings. From our perspective, we have to deal with the opposition of the Labor Party— Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY: They cry crocodile tears about the state of the budget, yet they were the ones who created the mess and they are the ones that are stopping us from fixing it. The figure of $43 billion would worsen the budget bottom line as a result of Labor's initiatives. Labor is directly opposing $28 billion of savings in the budget. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will desist! Mr HOCKEY: And they are proposing another $15 billion of additional spending. I am perplexed at this new economic narrative from Labor that suggests that, if you spend more, the bottom line improves. Where does that idea come from that if the government spends more, then the deficit will improve? The bottom line is that, every time the Labor Party blocks something, there is a cost not just to us but to the Australian people. Nothing illustrates it better than the fact—something that the member for McMahon should be familiar with—that the Labor Party are opposing $1.1 billion of savings that they announced in relation to R&D tax concessions for the 20 largest companies in Australia. It was the member for Lilley who advised the Australian people that that saving was essential to improve the budget bottom line, and the member for McMahon got all confused about it and thought it was related to Gonski. It was never related to Gonski. It was directly as a result of his attempts to try and fix the budget bottom line, which was a crisis when Labor was in government. Mr Swan interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will withdraw! Mr Swan: I withdraw. Mr HOCKEY: I am simply quoting the member for Lilley's own words. Mr Swan interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley has already been asked to withdraw. If he keeps— Mr Swan interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Lilley will remove himself under 94(a). Mr HOCKEY: I am afraid the member for Lilley has no class. What that reflects is that the is more about political games than dealing with the ugly legacy that he left the Australian people, which we are determined to fix up. Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order— The SPEAKER: Has the minister concluded his answer? Mr Hockey: Yes. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, you have asked this chamber for demeanour today; it works both ways. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.