My question is also to the Treasurer. How are the Morrison government's tax cuts helping Australian families, particularly women, keep more of what they earn, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?

I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. She is a very strong advocate on behalf of the tourism sector. She's a strong advocate on behalf of small business. Indeed, more than 30,000 in her electorate are going to be able to access the immediate expensing provisions.

At every turn we have sought to cut taxes—cutting taxes for small business to the lowest level in 50 years; providing record amounts of investment incentives through our tax system, which have been particularly effective through this pandemic; and cutting taxes for families. More than 11 million Australians have received more than $30 billion in tax cuts, and particular beneficiaries have been young people and particularly young women. Women aged 25 and under are paying 20 per cent less tax today than under the Labor Party—worth more than $2,000 a year.

Now, every step of the way as we've sought to cut taxes we've been opposed by a Greens-Labor coalition. That's because when it comes to tax policies the policies are very similar. The only difference is the colour of the letterhead. I went to the Greens website and I had a look at their tax policies, and they look like a Labor wish list. There's a housing tax—we've heard that before. There's a tax on family businesses and trusts—we've heard that before. There's a tax on the mining sector, a carbon tax, higher taxes on superannuation and higher taxes on income earners. Then, of course, most damningly of all, on the Greens website there is a 30-year project for the Leader of the Labor Party: death duties and inheritance tax.

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

A point of order on direct relevance. In terms of alternative policies, exactly how far back in history is going to be considered relevant? Realistically, are we going to go back to the Trojan War?

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.

When it comes to the Greens-Labor coalition, the Leader of the Labor Party has been very busy, very defensive and very hypersensitive, saying it is nonsense. The member for McMahon has been on the record when Labor and the Greens were in coalition.

The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).

The member for Griffith then left the chamber.

This is what he said:

The Greens are a party who have a very clear policy objective but also a party that you can sit down and discuss policies with.

This is what the member for McMahon has said. These are the words of the member of McMahon:

In the event that the Greens held the balance of power, then of course we'd work in that arrangement.

The member for McMahon belled the cat. The Greens and the Labor Party are a coalition.

The member for McMahon is warned. I would once again ask the Leader of the Opposition not to approach the dispatch box until the time is up.

You did. I'm not going to argue with you. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

I seek leave to table The neoclassical theory of the competitive market system, an essay of mine from first-year economics at the University of Sydney, written on 7 August 1981. It is handwritten, Mr Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is leave granted?

Mr Speaker, that is a two-page document in crayon, with pictures. It is not to be tabled.

Leave is not granted.