Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:34): I say to the member for Rankin: 'Don't worry, this will only hurt a little bit—only a little bit.' The reason is— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY: The member for Hume's question was a very good question. Why should we keep taxes low? Well, we should keep taxes low because that empowers individual Australians to have more control of their own money. That is what we want. We want Australians to control the destiny of their hard work. We want Australians to be in control of their own money. We do not believe that— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin. Mr HOCKEY: that the answer to every question is Canberra. We do not believe that. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. Mr HOCKEY: Individuals who work hard, individuals who take risk, individuals who invest, individuals who create jobs—they are the best judges of how to use their money. That is why that as of today we are collecting $5.4 billion less in tax revenue than would have been collected if Labor were re-elected. Why? Because of the decisions we made. We said the mining tax was a ball and chain around the legs of the mining industry. How right we were! Look at what has happened to the mining industry. Imagine if there was a mining tax on top of that. And the carbon tax—$550 a year for a family. The carbon tax was costing jobs, costing economic growth, and Labor wants to re-introduce the carbon tax that hurt the Australian economy—the carbon tax that hurt Australian families. Of course, we know that, because we abolished the carbon tax, prices for electricity have come down. A St Vincent de Paul Society study has confirmed that the saving on average for families is between $190 and $400 a year and is part of the broader $550 a year saved by Australian households as a result of getting rid of the carbon tax. But, of course, Labor wants to re-introduce the carbon tax. I found this document—their national platform—and it is compelling reading. There are some great lines in here. I would have thought at one stage that it was fiction. It says here: 'As a consequence of the decisions made by the last Labor government, Australia's public finances'— Opposition members interjecting— Ms Butler: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On standing order 104, I would ask the Speaker to rule that the Treasurer maintain direct relevance in answering the question. The SPEAKER: In the last 14 seconds of his answer, I ask the Treasurer to remain relevant to the question on the topic of tax. Mr HOCKEY: On the topic of tax, here on page 60 there is compelling reading. It says Labor will 'introduce an emissions trading scheme'. A new tax on everyday Australians, a new tax on electricity— (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER: Those on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question.