Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:08): The shadow Treasurer, with his reference to Saul, reminded me of my childhood and the nuns in year 7 telling me about the prodigal son. The prodigal son was given charge of much of the family's wealth. But over several years he went on a spending spree—reckless spending, endless waste. That was the prodigal son. We have a Treasurer who was given charge of all the country's wealth. He is Australia's prodigal son. The Treasurer is Australia's prodigal son and he has gone on a spending spree. Despite endless denials and despite endlessly talking about fiscal discipline, a spending spree continues. That is why there is a need for a crisis mini-budget. They leave you with the impression that they have fiscal consolidation. It is called statistical gymnastics. If you bother to have a look at the facts, as the Prime Minister is often reminding us—although she doesn't follow her own advice—this government brought down its first budget with a four per cent real growth in spending. That was pretty hefty. But let us say that is the reference point—$272 billion was the first budget of Australia's prodigal son. The next year we saw 12.7 per cent real growth—12.7 per cent is unprecedented—to $316 billion. The next year we saw another 4.2 per cent real growth to $337 billion. Then we had 0.7 per cent real growth, less than one per cent. But of course it is on top of this mountain that they have spent the two years before. So they have $349 billion and the following year another one per cent, $362 billion. We keep hearing about them being fiscally responsible. Yet they have not taken one dollar off the mountain of expenditure that they spent in 2008-09 and 2009-10. At least $90 billion in four years. It is not a one-off; every year now forever they will have built in an extra $90 billion. He's scurrying off now! He doesn't want to hear the facts. Dr Emerson: I'm back! Mr ROBB: He has been shamed back into it. Dr Emerson: I was putting some rubbish in the bin. Mr ROBB: This is a situation not unlike a family that was spending $1,000 a month living within its means on groceries and then they have a brain snap and for two months they increase their spending on groceries by 20 per cent to $1,200. Then they increase by only one per cent for the next two months. They are still well over $1,200 and still over $200 a month more than they can afford. This is what we have got with our prodigal son, the Treasurer. The prodigal son has spent all the money. He has gone on a spending spree—and the waste!—and we are still left with the bill. He is still spending at that rate. This is the only difference between the real prodigal son and the Treasurer: the Treasurer is still spending at the rate he was when he was out on the town, when he was spreading his largesse around cities, when he was acting in an irresponsible and wanton fashion, when he was giving in to all sorts of inducements. This is why the government needs to release its crisis mini-budget—its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook—and why it needs to be done in this chamber. We need to have this level of scrutiny, not a few one-liners in the media that night about fiscal consolidation and fiscal discipline. We need to be able to expose the real facts about this government's spending patterns. These are the things that have spooked households all over the country. This is why savings amongst households is above 13½ per cent. They are fearful of what is lying ahead. They can see dark clouds outside of Australia. They are dark clouds we have got no control of—I acknowledge that. But when you see dark clouds—when you see threats—you take action to mitigate the dangers. If you see threats you do what you can to mitigate and to lessen the dangers. Not this government. We have the prodigal son, who has gone off and spent and spent, and is still spending at the rate that he was when he was off on his wanton ways. This has led to the crisis of confidence not only in households, which are saving like there is no tomorrow, but it has also led to the lack of investment. There is a lot of money in companies' balance sheets—they are not spending. Outside of mining, they are not spending. Manufacturing has lost 135,000 jobs and small business has lost 300,000 jobs. Dr Emerson: Give them a tax break! Mr ROBB: What do you think about jobs? What do you think about jobs for working families? Where are the working families in manufacturing and in small business? You cannot stand up here and say that you believe in and support working families when you have lost 435,000 jobs in manufacturing and small business in your term of office. You hypocrites! That is what you are. You stand up there and say one thing and do the other. We have seen it endlessly. We saw it again today in the House. The government tell us that they have everything in good shape: 'Don't worry about what's going on in the rest of the world—we're better off than the rest. We don't have any threats to us.' Then you look at the structural deficit—I bet that half of them would not even know what a structural deficit is. It happens to be the level of spending commitments that will go on regardless of the revenue. A structural deficit is one where you have expenditure which goes on and on. It is a long-term commitment. The trouble is that the structural deficit in this country has relied on 140-year high levels in— Mr Shorten: Terms of trade. Mr ROBB: Terms of trade—thanks, Bill. You are really on the mark. He is very quick witted. We have 140-year highs. The trouble is that if those highs come off or even go back to normal levels—we do not have to have a collapse in commodity prices—we are looking at another $50 billion deficit going on and on and on. We could have a $250 billion net debt within three years if commodity prices come off because of a collapse in Europe or because China went back to six or seven per cent growth. That is still high growth and there is still demand for the product, but at much lower prices. Of course, in the Financial Review today the forecast for coking coal is for a decline by $100 a tonne through the calendar year 2012. That is why we sought a sensitivity analysis. I was ridiculed by the Treasurer today—the prodigal son. He ridiculed me for any suggestion of a sensitivity analysis. If coking prices do fall by $100, we, the community and the business community would like to know what the implications are for the budget. That is good economic management. And yet we will see none of it. We will see a few forecasts, but we will see no sensitivity in case the prices of exports collapse or even fall. They do not have to collapse; they only have to go back to long-term levels. What we see from this government is an attempt to create a budget surplus next year which is manufactured—a manufactured budget surplus. We will have fiscal gymnastics next week and we will have them all through the next six months and the six years that they are in power. (Time expired)