Ms SITOU (Reid) (16:13): Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have been in this place longer than I, so I think maybe you will agree to this point: often times in this place, in this chamber, there are a lot of theatrics. There is a lot of important work that happens here, absolutely, but there are also a lot of theatrics and, let's be honest here, this matter of public importance that is being raised by the Liberals is pure theatrics. Because if it was anything else, if it was something of substance, then they would be standing up here to talk about their policies, their agenda to help households in this cost-of-living challenge. But instead, they have nothing. They have no policies. Actually, no—sorry, colleagues—they do have one policy. Their one policy is nuclear energy, which is expensive, difficult to deliver and probably not going to come on until the never-never. They still haven't named where those power stations are going to be but—Hansard, can we just correct that—they do have one policy. They do have their nuclear policy, details to be determined—hopefully, tomorrow. I appreciate the member for Menzies' comments about how important this is, and the tree analogy was really apt, because the budget to us is anything but theatrical. It is deeply serious and important, and we are genuinely trying to make a difference to people's lives. We're doing that on two fronts. These are things that we have been solely focused on over all the budgets that we have been delivering: to drive down inflation and to provide cost-of-living relief to households. You can see that the work that the Treasurer and the entire cabinet are doing to put downward pressure on inflation is paying off. It is working. They have delivered two surpluses. The last time an Australian government was able to deliver two surpluses was almost two decades ago, roughly around the same time that Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone. That is how long ago it was. We were able to do it because we showed spending restraint. So, from those opposite, how many surpluses were they able to deliver? They delivered lots of bravado. They delivered lots of mugs. They did a lot of cigar smoking. But how many surpluses were they able to give us? Big fat doughnut—zero. Ms Mascarenhas: I love doughnuts! Ms SITOU: We all love doughnuts, absolutely, but we on this side of the House have been able to deliver two surpluses because of the spending restraint that we have shown. And, on the spending restraint that we have shown, 97 per cent of revenue upgrades have been banked—put back into government coffers. That's a responsible measure, a responsible step, that this government has taken. How much were those opposite able to bank when they were in government? Only 44 per cent, because they were too busy spending like drunken sailors. Anyone who has a mortgage—and many of us on this side of the House have mortgages that we're trying to pay off—will tell you that the faster you pay down your debt, the less interest you have to pay. Because of the hard work that we have put into this budget to show spending restraint—and bear in mind that we did inherit a trillion dollars worth of debt from those opposite—we will save $80 billion in interest repayments, and that is a significant saving for all Australians. I want to quickly end with all the important cost-of-living relief measures that we have put in place. The first is energy bill relief, and that builds on the energy bill relief that we have already given to concession card holders. How much would they have gotten under those opposite? Big fat doughnut again—zero—because they voted against the energy bill relief last time around, and all indications are that they're not going to support it again this time around. The second is tax cuts. If you are someone who is earning $40,000 a year, how much would you have received had we stuck with the opposition's stage 3 tax cut plan? Big fat doughnut again—zero—whereas you'll be $650 better off under us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The discussion has now concluded.