My question is directed to the Treasurer. If this budget is, as the Treasurer claims, a budget for the future, why does it forecast a decline in labour market participation, cut the percentage spent on skills and training, fail to guarantee the delivery of extra child-care places, forecast an increase in the current account deficit and forecast slower growth in business investment? Given that each of these is conceded in the budget papers, how can the Treasurer claim that this is a budget for the future?

This is a budget for the future because it has massive investment in national infrastructure: $800 million for the Hume Highway, another $220 million for the Bruce Highway—

Ms King interjecting

Order! The member for Ballarat!

$45 million in relation to Tully flood works, the largest increase in national health and medical research spending ever, $300 million in Roads to Recovery funding, $36 billion worth of income tax cuts and the most ambitious superannuation policy that Australia has ever seen. This is a budget that has been received well by the Australian community and even endorsed by the Australian Labor Party. There is no point coming back into the House and trying to renew an attack today after surrendering yesterday in the first question time following the budget. The paucity and the feebleness of the attack of the Australian Labor Party on this budget illustrates what Australians know: it is a good budget, it invests for our future and it is right for our economy.