My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Treasury secretary defended Labor's toxic taxes by saying:

… revenue needs to be raised from somewhere …

Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australians will pay $77 billion more tax than they get back?

Order, members on my left! We don't need the wows. We're going to allow everyone to be heard in silence. That includes the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, who's now asked his question.

I can certainly confirm that the legislation that has been debated before the parliament this week confirms that Labor is the party of aspiration. Labor is the party of homeownership. This legislation does two fundamental things.

Order, members on my left, Member for Barker, Member for Groom! We are 30 seconds in. There is far too much noise. If this continues, I will be left with no other action early in question time to take action.

The first thing that it does is allow an opportunity for young people to get into homeownership. It rebalances the ledger so that young people have an opportunity. We saw that just on the weekend, where, in Bexley, a young couple with a baby bought their first home on Saturday. All three registered bidders for the auction of the two-bedroom garden villa took part, and all were first home buyers. In Melbourne in Maribyrnong, Lara Harris, the estate agent, said this: 'The buyers were a young couple from Southbank sick of apartment living who had once lived in the area and wanted to come back. The underbidders were also a young first home buyer couple. There are a lot of first home buyers in the market.' In Maroubra, Corinne Olsen, the estate agent, spoke about the young family who thought they'd been priced out of a beachside suburb. They won the keys to a three-bedroom house. Corinne Olsen, the estate agent, said, 'The winning family had been looking for a property around Mascot because they didn't think they could afford something close to the water.' There they are in South Sydney homeland.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

On relevance. The question was about the $77 billion of additional taxation being imposed on Australians by this government.

The Prime Minister is talking about the tax policy that he was asked about. He's giving some examples. He was asked a specific question regarding the tax policy, so he'll need to make sure his answer is being directly relevant. He won't be able to stray into other topics because he wasn't asked about other topics. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant with the example that he's given regarding the tax take.

These tax changes are what are rebalancing the market so that young first home buyers can get a fair crack. The other thing that these tax cuts are doing.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The minister for infrastructure, I can barely hear.

It's her birthday, to be fair.

Birthday or not, all the rules apply. Prime Minister.

The other thing that the legislation is doing is giving Australians a tax cut. There are two further measures: the $1,000 automatic tax deduction and the working Australians tax offset. We on this side of the House stand for lower income taxes. On that side of the House, they stand for higher income taxes.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order!

What we saw on the weekend is that they've become what Australia doesn't need: just a cover band. We don't need a Tony Abbott cover band, a cheaper version. We had the real thing out there on Friday become national president. Then he did seven interviews yesterday, because he knows that this bloke just ain't up to the job!

Order! The member for Fisher interjected 10 times during that answer, so he's going to leave the chamber under 94(a). Having continual interjections in one answer is highly disorderly—and nonstop is not acceptable. Everyone gets a fair go, but you can't take the goodwill of the House for granted.

The member for Fisher then left the chamber.