Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:48): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to the member's question. It refers to millionaires. Mr Khalil interjecting— Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER: The members for Wills and Lalor will leave under 94(a). The members for Wills and Lalor then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON: The member asked a question about the deficit levy, which he knows comes in for an income of $180,000—that is the top marginal tax rate. On 3AW on 21 April 2016 Neil Mitchell asked the Leader of the Opposition a question: Is $180,000 a year rich? The Leader of the Opposition said: No, it's not … But it does not stop there. The hypocrisy of those opposite is amazing. If I look at ABC's Insiders, the shadow Treasurer, talking about the deficit levy, said: … we don't like this increase in tax … therefore we wouldn't be supporting it … We don't like it and we don't support it. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned. Mr MORRISON: He said: Paul Keating … started the process of reducing those marginal tax rates to make us more competitive as a nation in a globalised world. That's the direction we should be heading in. Well, the direction that the shadow minister wants to head in is completely the other direction. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned. Mr MORRISON: The best one comes down to the shadow Treasurer. Many years ago, when he was talking about the issue of tax cuts, he said: The other tactic is to portray the Labor Party as being opposed to tax cuts or being opposed to tax cuts for high-income earners. Both of these allegations are untrue … We all like a tax cut. Everybody likes a tax cut. People at the upper end of the income scale like a tax cut, and they deserve a tax cut. That was from Chris Bowen, now the shadow Treasurer, back in the June 2005. This shadow Treasurer cannot stand up to his own shadow. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. I said at the start of question time I would not keep continually warning members. The member for Lyons was bellowing uncontrollably. He can go back to his office under 94(a), and others who have been warned or who were ejected last week are on similar notice. They are not going to disrupt question time. They were not elected to come here and disrupt the proceedings of the House. The member for Lyons then left the chamber.