Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:12): There are times when a government has to consider that so much damage has been done to an economy, that so much is at risk in an economy and that there are such forces at play in an economy that the government has to step in and spend money. There are times when the international economy has turned so badly that a government has to spend and stimulate the economy. It happened during the period of the previous Labor government—the worst financial and economic crisis in 60 years. Labor stepped in and Labor took action. And didn't they rail against it? Didn't they complain that too much was being spent? Well, another Treasurer has decided that so much damage has been done to the economy, that confidence is so low and that the economy is so bad that they have had to increase spending to GFC levels. We see spending outlined in last night's budget at 25.9 per cent of the economy. It was 26 per cent during the depths of the global financial crisis, and it is 25.9 per cent now as they strive desperately to improve the economy after the smashing of confidence that they have perpetrated over the last 12 months. This says, along with all the other backflips and all the other problems in its budget preparation, that this government stands for nothing. This government stands for absolutely nothing. We see the government walking away from its formal and solemn commitments about budget surpluses. The Treasurer used to tell us, 'There's no revenue problem in Australia, only a spending problem.' He has told us that time and time again, and we find spending on his watch the same as during the depths of the global financial crisis. That tells us just how lacking in substance this Treasurer is, and we see spending as a percentage of the economy 1.3 percentage points higher than it was left under the Labor government. We see the budget's own documents outlining the impact of government decisions. There is a very important table in the budget papers, and it outlines the impact of government decisions. It shows that the impact of government decisions has blown out the budget deficit by $9 billion. They say: 'Oh, we paid for everything. Everything we've done is offset by other savings.' It is just not right. I saw the Minister for Finance on Lateline last night. This was put to him, and he said, 'You're forgetting one point: the savings from our paid parental leave'—a cunning plan. So they are suggesting that the savings come from a program they never implemented. I am on good terms with the shadow finance minister—the member for Watson is a good friend of mine—but, if I went to him and said, 'I've got a cunning plan: why don't we come up with a bigger plan that raises expenses, and then we don't proceed with it, and then we can claim it as a saving?' I think he would suggest I take some time out to reflect on my grip on reality! As good terms as I am on with the member for Watson, he would tell me I had lost my grip on reality if I suggested abolishing a program that we had never implemented and claiming it as a saving as part of a cunning fiscal plan. That is what this government has done. It is what the member for Kooyong has done and the Minister for Finance has done. We see the debt and deficit disaster that we heard so much about. An opposition member interjecting— Mr BOWEN: As the parliamentary secretary points out, we have had the fire truck analogy: the Prime Minister telling us that the fire truck pulled up on the day of the last election and started putting out the fire of the deficit. It turns out the fire truck pulled up and the fireman got out, had a look around and kicked the tires, popped back in the fire truck and drove back to the station. That is what happened with the fire truck, because you see the deficit doubled from just last year when the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box. The budget deficits doubled over four years in just one year. This is their impact. Apparently their way of dealing with a debt and deficit disaster is to double it. That'll fix it! 'That's our cunning plan,' says the Treasurer. People are asking, 'What is the point of the Abbott government?' Australians said in 2013: 'I'm not sure about this. I don't really trust that Leader of the Opposition. I'm not sure that I trust Tony Abbott's judgement, but he's got a plan to get us back into surplus. He'll get the deficit down, so we'll give him a go.' Many Australians said they were not sure about it and not sure they trusted him, but they gave him a go. And so what has he done to those voters who put their trust in him? He has doubled the deficit as his plan to deal with a debt and deficit disaster. Despite all this, the prejudice remains in the budget and in fact has got worse. We know that many of the measures in the budget of last year remain. The $100,000 university degrees? Still there. The $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education? Still there. The cuts to family tax benefit? Still there and linked to childcare reforms, turning the budget document into one long ransom note to Australian families, saying, 'We won't give you more money, more assistance for your child care unless we get to take even more money than that away from you in your family tax benefit.' This is the prejudice at the heart of the Abbott government. We saw that prejudice on display very clearly at question time today because it has got worse. Not even in the last budget—the worst budget in 60 years—did they try to take money and time with their newborn babies away from Australian mothers in an ambush of Australian families. They claim Abbott's ambush of Australian families was an election commitment to remove the entitlement to the government paid parental leave scheme if your employer provides it as well. I do not recall it being a central feature of the election campaign of the opposition. I do recall paid parental leave being mentioned by the now Prime Minister but in a very different way from what he is now alleging he said to the Australian people. But the prejudice is clear. We saw the Minister for Social Services. I note that at the end of question time there is an opportunity for members who claim to have been misrepresented. I did not hear the Minister for Social Services jumping to his feet to deny calling it a rort. Ms Macklin: Or the Treasurer. Mr BOWEN: Or the Treasurer. The Treasurer could have denied calling it a fraud. I did not hear a personal explanation taken to deny this claim. No, because—perhaps in a moment of weakness—they showed their true agenda. They showed their true prejudice. The Minister for Social Services is on quite a campaign—the new Minister for Social Services, the soft and cuddly Minister for Social Services! He could start by apologising to Australian mothers. He could start by apologising and admitting he got it wrong, admitting that he should never have said that. But he will not do that, because he still believes it. They stand by the policy. It is an outrageous policy that they have. It is an insult to the Australian people for the Treasurer, the Minister for Social Services, the Prime Minister and the Assistant Treasurer to say to those people who negotiated things in good faith, those people who negotiated with their employers and gave up wage increases and other conditions so they could spend more time with newborn children that they are rorters and take this condition away in a clear breach of an election commitment. They were promised a rolled gold parental leave scheme and instead they got Abbott's ambush from this Prime Minister who stands for nothing except prejudice. This is the sort of treatment of Australian families we see from this government. It runs through the last budget and this budget, and I predict it will run until we see the defeat of the Abbott government. Until we see the defeat of this government, we will see this prejudice exhibited time and time again. It is prejudice which results in the budget deficit doubling as their impact on improving the budget bottom line. We know that the Treasurer has told us there are no alternatives but his way. We also know that is not true. The Assistant Treasurer might in his remarks talk about some of the alternatives. He might in his remarks talk about Labor's plan to make sure multinationals pay a fair share of tax. He might talk about superannuation. The Assistant Treasurer is here. I had a feeling he might be here. I have a soft spot for the Assistant Treasurer. He's not the best Assistant Treasurer we've ever had, but he's in the top 10! There have been 11! But in a press release last night he said: 'And Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen need to get their stories straight. One says the budget is too soft and the other says it's not tough enough.' Maybe in his remarks he could explain what the difference is between being too soft on the one hand and not tough enough on the other. We'd love to hear it! You could start with it. There is an introduction for the Assistant Treasurer: we would love to hear him explain the difference between too soft and not tough enough. (Time expired)