Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:32): 'Ultimately, the Prime Minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership that our nation needs.' It was true when the now Prime Minister said that before he became Prime Minister, and it is still true now. What we saw in last night's budget was continuity with change. That is exactly what we saw in last night's budget. It was continuity with change, certainty with chaos, calm with fear—Turnbull yet Abbott. That is exactly what was presented to us last night. It is even affirmed in the documents that were given out last night. The poor Prime Minister! Clearly, people had not told him what was in the budget. He was asked a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the impact of the budget on someone earning a million dollars a year compared to the impact on a single mum who is earning $87,000 a year with two kids in high school. The person earning a million dollars, after what was confirmed last night, will end up nearly $17,000 a year better off. The single parent working on $87,000 a year ends up $4,500 worse off. No-one told the poor old PM. On page 8 of the budget overview it said: The Government is committed to ensuring that the $13 billion of unimplemented expenditure savings measures are passed by the Senate or alternative savings measures identified to continue on the path to a balanced budget. What the Prime Minister needed to know is that that means the 2014 budget is still here and the 2015 is still here. The cuts that brought down the previous Prime Minister and caused the end of the Abbott government have all been adopted in black and white last night by the Turnbull government. The very least those responsible for these decisions could have done was tell the Prime Minister, but the poor bloke stood up today with absolutely no idea as to what has been put in his own budget. Not only that, those opposite have been getting up and thinking that the changes to the corporate tax rate that were announced last night were about small business. Nobody told them what was in the budget! I reckon the Prime Minister did know about this one. I think it is fair to say that he was onto this. So desperate was the Prime Minister to provide a tax cut for big business that he decided to use small business as Trojan Horse. Not surprisingly, those opposite will only talk about what happens to the definition of small business in the first year. Ms Henderson: You don't understand it. Mr BURKE: You might not understand what is here. If you do understand what is here, you are mad for supporting it. What they have done is all listed under the claim in the title of this document, Making our tax system more sustainable. The sustainable one is the one they have not costed. On page 17 of that document, they take the definition of a small business to one with a turnover of $10 million a year, in the first year. In the second year, it moves up again. It is not only in this document. It is here in the budget papers. The definition then goes up to $25 million. The definition of small business the year after that goes up to $50 million a year. Until we get to the 2022-23 income year, when the definition of small business is a business with a $1 billion turnover. As an attempt by those opposite to hide that they were providing a benefit for big business, it is probably best not to get to the billion dollar figure! By the time you get to the billion dollar figure, I reckon the public are on to you. If those opposite want to get a tax cut for their mates in big business, just own up to it, but do not claim that businesses with a $1 billion turnover are the little guy. Do not claim that those with a $1 billion turnover are the businesses where the person running the business knows every one of their employees by name. That is not a $1 billion turnover company. But that is a small business measure that those opposite backed last night. You have a centrepiece of the budget and they do not know how much it costs. They describe it as a small business measure, but instead what they are delivering is the most extraordinary outcome for big business. With the company tax rate, the benefits go to the top end of town. With the personal income tax rate, the big benefits go to the highest income earners. Budgets are about choices, and every ordinary Australian family and every average Australian worker knows in making those choices those opposite have not chosen them—they have chosen themselves and their mates.