I agree with you. I'll just make a couple of points here.
I completely agree with Dr. Good about the power of Finance, and with the honourable member.
There's a second point, which is that people quite mistakenly believe that tax law is highly complex. It's actually not. You should take my basic tax course; it's a lot of fun. There is this myth that essentially tax law is so complex and difficult that it has to be handled by Finance. My response is that the $5,000 new savings plan that you mention has actually nothing to do with tax law; it has to do with a decision to permit people to save money tax-free. Essentially, another way of doing it would have been to cut a cheque to various people you wanted to benefit and to say, here's the subsidy, but it's actually delivered through the tax system.
To your point about its happening after the fact, there is no question that this is the way it's done. I don't believe that Finance took gender into account in the budget in any particular way—the current budget or previous budgets—because there's no evidence of it. They have now been called to account, to a certain degree, but as you say, it is after the fact.
But I've been doing this for a long time, and just doing the analysis is a real step forward, because it never used to be done. Now you as politicians and others can say, excuse me, the new savings plan actually is not fair because, as you mentioned, you need to have disposable income to save in order to benefit from it.
So we now know who wins and who loses. Ten or fifteen years ago we weren't talking about that, and at least we're talking about it.