Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his question. He gives me the opportunity to continue with my consideration of the 2010 Labor budget, because this was such an enthusiastic endorsement of a relatively small cut to company tax. It was only one per cent. They actually booked a $600 million reform dividend in additional revenue as a result of it. They said here, in their budget papers, 'The government's tax plan will promote growth across the entire economy. Independent modelling of the plan indicates it will deliver a reform dividend of 0.7 per cent increase in GDP in the long run which, over time, can be expected to flow through into taxation revenue,' which is why they booked the dividend. 'The reduction in the company tax rate is expected to increase— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten: On direct relevance. My question was about the 2017 government budget increasing taxes on seven million Australians. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. His question was about tax rises, company tax cuts, and the Prime Minister is talking about company tax in a policy area. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll go on. It said, in the 2010 paper, 'The reduction in the company tax rate is expected to increase GDP by 0.4 per cent in the long run.' So that was just a one per cent cut in company tax. That's what Labor said. That's the advice they got from Treasury. They put it in the budget papers. It wasn't a political speech. It was right there, in the papers, signed by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, at the time. And the logic remains precisely the same. The reason we have cut company tax, up to $50 million turnover businesses and we're seeking to cut it for all businesses, is precisely the same logic that Labor advanced in 2010: it increases investment, increases productivity, increases wages and, of course, has a result in increasing government revenues. And you can see how much Labor thought it would do then. In terms of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the very simple fact is that Labor was dripping with compassion talking about the NDIS, claiming it is a great Labor enterprise and a great Labor achievement—but did not fund it. They did not fund it. You can have all of the compassion under the sun, but you cannot look into the eyes of a mother with a disabled child and say, 'I want to look after you,' and then not provide the funds to do so. So that's what we're doing with the Medicare levy, and Labor should stop their hypocrisy, stop all their bogus compassion, and get behind it and make sure that we pay for that great national enterprise of the NDIS.