Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. According to NATSEM modelling, which takes into account budget impacts including the abolition of the carbon price, families in the Prime Minister's electorate will be $144 worse off because of his unfair budget. But families in my budget of Watson will be $935.50 worse off—even after the impact of the abolition of the carbon price has been taken into account. Why are families in my electorate, in my part of Sydney, bearing the heaviest burden for the Prime Minister's broken promises?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely accept that there are some tough decisions in this budget. I absolutely accept that, and I absolutely accept that there are a lot of decisions in this budget which a lot of people would not like. And, under different circumstances, this government would not have needed to take them. But we were left with a debt and deficit disaster by members opposite. Members opposite know that it is important to get back to surplus, because, let's face it, for years they boasted not just that they were getting back to surplus but that they had got back to surplus. They never, ever delivered it.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question went to why some parts of Australia are paying a higher burden than others by a significant proportion.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members opposite used to understand that it was important to get back to surplus. They boasted constantly that they were producing a budget surplus for a strong economy but, do you know what? They never, ever delivered it. They never ever delivered it.

Having misled people through six years of government, they are now continuing to mislead people. David Speers the other day asked the Leader of the Opposition, 'You're blocking a lot of the budget measures they want to implement in getting back to surplus. So putting the government to one side, I suppose, when will we get back to surplus? When do you think we should bet back to surplus?' Shades of Swanny, this is the Leader of the Opposition, 'We're more likely to get back to surplus under a Labor government than this current mob.' Here he is, the deficit king, pretending to be a surplus king. They just cannot be believed.