Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:24): Spare us the questions about billionaires when those opposite called for an election because we wanted to give Gina Rinehart a $4½ thousand tax cut instead of a $9,000 tax cut. The Leader of the Opposition was so furious on behalf of his mate that he called for an election over the changes that we made to the tax cuts in January of this year. Spare us the faux outrage. Spare us the faux class warfare over there. They've had a lot to say about class warfare in the past, and this just goes to the shambolic response that we have seen to last night's budget. They're casting around for all kinds of excuses to oppose energy bill relief like they voted against it last time. They're looking around for all kinds of excuses to prevent the renewable energy superpower ambitions of this country being realised in the years and the decades ahead. This is now two questions that the member for Hume has asked the Prime Minister, and it's hard to work out which one was worse. The first one, which quoted hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, and that spending contains the indexation of the age pension, for example. So the member for Hume thinks the indexation of the age pension is overspending. And now in this question, he is all of a sudden— The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will pause. I want to hear from the member for Hume on a point of order. Mr Taylor: Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about billions for billionaires. Will you answer the question? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! I want to make sure the— Ms Scrymgour interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari is warned. It is not the time to interject when I'm dealing with a point of order. If that continues, people won't get warned. The question contained 'relief for billionaires when average Australians are worse off'. That was the question. I'm just going to make sure. If the Treasurer is comparing and contrasting— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER: Okay, 'spending' for billionaires. I just want to make sure he's relevant and make sure he's doing the compare and contrast to that part of the question and not straying into other matters. Dr CHALMERS: Well, first of all, I remind the House again that those opposite called for an election over the changes to the tax cut which provided a tax cut for every taxpayer. Secondly, I haven't been here that long, but I've been here long enough to remember when they used to believe in tax cuts to incentivise business investment. But they seem to have turned their back on that. It is, again, evidence of the shambolic approach they have taken. Thirdly, if they want to talk about battlers, it's a very good day for them to ask that question. I want to tell you why. A couple of hours ago, we got new data on the wage price index, didn't we? We got new data on the wage price index, which showed that real wages in annual terms are growing by half a per cent— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS: It's not funny; he's funny. The reason he's funny is that, when we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. They are now growing again for the first time in years, and that's because this Prime Minister and this government want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and those opposite want people to work longer for less.