I'm interested in a couple of issues that were brought up in the reviews and which no doubt have already slightly been canvassed by other members of the House, and will no doubt be further canvassed. One is around levels of Government debt and the approach to investment. So, obviously, there's been a strong focus on keeping levels of debt low or "prudent", although prudent is variable depending on your perspective. What I wanted to call to the attention of the House is that there's been quite a change in the mainstream economic orthodoxy between the 1980s and 90s—when was perhaps when some of these people last studied economics—and now, where we have the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the president of the European Central Bank, and the chief Treasurer of the United States, Janet Yellen, all of them showing particular leadership calling for more progressive taxation, more Government spending on health, education, climate change, and public infrastructure. So that's the new US Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, who was former governor of the Reserve Bank; the IMF managing director, Kristalina Georgieva; and European Central Bank President and former head of the OECD, Christine Lagarde. So there's clearly been a very different perspective on what is good for economies and it is no longer the perspective that corporate tax cuts, low taxes for the wealthy, low levels of Government spending on core public services is a good thing—it's actually a bad thing. I invite members of the National Party to come into the 21st century when it comes to the economy. The challenges of climate change, a global pandemic, increasing inequality, all require us to rethink some of that economic orthodoxy.