Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
Page: 7163

Budget


Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:57): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is today ramming legislation through the parliament that will mean a single income family with two kids earning $65,000 a year will be $6,000 a year worse off. Why is the Prime Minister trying to hide his unfair budget that will hurt Australian families?


Mr ABBOTT (WarringahPrime Minister) (14:58): I do accept that there are changes in the budget. Obviously, there are changes in the budget. There have to be changes in the budget to ensure that we address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite created. The member who asked this question I believe used to work for the member for Lilley.

Government members interjecting

The SPEAKER: Silence on my right.

Mr ABBOTT: Why were members opposite incapable of delivering on the four years of surpluses that they claimed to deliver in the 2012 budget?

Mr Sukkar interjecting

The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin will desist!

Mr ABBOTT: Why, indeed?

Dr Chalmers interjecting

The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin has asked his question. He will listen in silence.

Mr ABBOTT: The problem is that members opposite—

Dr Chalmers interjecting

The SPEAKER: Are you anxious to leave the chamber?

Mr ABBOTT: simply could not be trusted with public money. That is the problem. The member has asked me about a single income family with two children. I can inform the member who asked me the question about a single income couple with two dependent children aged from six to 13. When one of them earns $60,000, this couple will continue to get in 2016-17 $8,348 from the taxpayer.

The difference between the members opposite and this government is that under this government benefits are sustainable because they are being paid from a budget that is back in balance, and not from a budget which is simply out of control. That is the problem with the member for Rankin: he obviously was not much good at advising the member for Lilley because the member for Lilley was incapable—utterly incapable—of delivering us a balanced budget, let alone a surplus. This government will undo the damage created by its predecessor to the enduring benefit of every single Australian.