Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:11): He's got a lot of nerve asking about responsible economic management, after the mess that they left us to clean up in the budget. We won't be lectured about debt, spending or responsible economic management by the party that left us with more than a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt, which we have spent our two years in office trying to clean up. They would not know the first thing about responsible economic management. The least familiar word in the budget last night, to those opposite, was the word 'surplus'. They had nine cracks at it. They promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, and they came up with doughnuts—none from nine. We've been here for two years, and we're delivering two surpluses at the same time as we provide cost-of-living relief for people and invest in the future of our economy. If they had their way, inflation would be higher, debt and deficits would be bigger, wages growth would be lower and tax cuts for middle Australia would be smaller. The reason I'm so grateful that the Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to answer the question from the member for Hume is it allows me to point out to those opposite that what matters here is real spending growth in the economy, and real spending growth under this side of the House has been 1.4 per cent. Do you know what it was under those opposite? It was 4.1 per cent. There's hypocrisy in asking us about spending in the budget, when what they spent, in real spending growth, was— Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Hume has asked his question. Dr CHALMERS: a multiple of the real spending growth that we have seen in our budgets so far. We have been cleaning up the mess that they left us in the budget at the same time as we've been providing cost-of-living relief for people. So I hope that the member for Hume asks many more questions today. Whenever they ask these questions, it gives us an opportunity to point to the shameful mess that they left behind in the budget and the diligent, considered and methodical way that we have been cleaning that mess up, not instead of helping people or investing in the future but as well as doing those things. I want to say about those two surpluses in the budget that, if it was easy, even the member for Hume could do it, but they were unable to do it in their nine years in office. When the member for Hume was the most embarrassing part of a bad government, they were unable to get anywhere near the kinds of outcomes that we are seeing in the budget as a consequence of our diligence and the responsible way that we have come at this difficult task. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: There's far too much noise on both sides of the chamber. If that continues, people will be warned, and there will be consequences.