Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

As to the cost of a loaf of bread, I've just done some quick research. If you go onto a website called the Numbeo website, it indicates that a 500-gram loaf of fresh white bread is cheaper in Iceland, the US—including Puerto Rico—Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica, Denmark, Luxembourg, Jamaica or South Korea than in Australia. I could go on. In dozens of countries, it is cheaper to buy a loaf of bread than it is in Australia. So don't come here and talk to us about the cost of a loaf of bread.

The previous speaker spoke about this as being 'another great example of what we are doing as a government'. That's how they described this budget. I say to the people of Australia: do just three things, if you want to assess this budget. Before you make a decision at the next election, please do these three things. First, the one page in the budget that you should have a look at is in Budget Paper No. 1, Budget strategy and outlook, table 3.2. What will you see there? Underlying cash deficit: $27.6 billion, 2024-25; $42.1 billion, 2025-26. Deficit: $35.7 billion, 2026-27; $37.2 billion, 2027-28; $36.8 billion, 2028-29. A sea of red ink is what you'll find in another great example of what this government's achieved. That's only looking at the underlying cash balance. It doesn't include off-balance sheet items, which—under some accounting sorcery—aren't included in that table but would add $104 billion to that deficit, taking you, over the forward estimates, to a total of $283.4 billion of deficits in this budget. That's the first thing you should do, look at table 3.2.

The second thing you should do is read what economists are saying about this budget. I want to quote from an article written by Professor Richard Holden, a professor of economics at the University of New South Wales. This is what he says about the budget. These are his words, not the words of a politician on either side of this chamber. These are the words of an economist who's studied the budget. I'm quoting from an article in the Fin Review. This is how he describes it:

Chalmers is wrong. The worst is not behind us, it is yet to come.

Those are his words. In relation to the so-called tax cuts, this is what Professor Holden says:

The government is stealing a $10 note from you and throwing back a $2 coin.

That's how Professor Holden describes the 70-cents-a-day tax cuts in this budget. Why? Because of bracket creep. He says:

A worker on $100,000 a year will get a $268 tax cut in the 2026-27 fiscal year and $536 each year after that. So $5000 over a decade. But the same worker will be hit by $25,000 in increased taxes from bracket creep …

With increased taxes of $25,000 you'll get $5,000 back. This is the Labor Albanese government stealing a $10 note from you and throwing back a $2 coin. So the second thing you should do is read that article by Professor Holden.

The last thing you should do is ask yourself: after three years of the Labor Albanese government, am I better off? If you are not better off—and we know, as Senator Hume referred to this, that net real disposable income has fallen by eight per cent over the term of this government—over the last three years, then why, in goodness sake, would you give this Labor government another three years? Why would you expect a different result? The millions of Australians who are doing it tough out there, should ask themselves this question: am I better off or worse off after three years of this Labor government?