Economists slam major parties over timing of costings

The government argues most of its costings were included in the federal budget on March 25, while the coalition claims it needed to wait for that document before crunching its own numbers. 

AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said the timing wasn't surprising.

"Both sides of politics (tend to) do these sort of tricks," Mr Oliver told AAP.

Although the coalition has faced criticism for releasing its costings late in the campaign, Labor did the same in opposition during the 2022 election, when it released its figures at a similar stage.

"It's ultimately designed to avoid too much focus on them," Mr Oliver said. 

Independent economist Chris Richardson echoed the sentiment, arguing both sides should have released costings of notable policies weeks ago.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor unveiled policy costings headlined by a budget bottom line improvement of $14 billion over the next four years.

He said the coalition would return the budget to surplus faster than Labor by paring back spending.

"This is the biggest improvement in the budget position since the current costing conventions were put in place almost 15 years ago," he told reporters in Sydney.

The coalition costings said the budget deficit would increase by $5.6 billion in the 2025/26 financial year and be $2.3 billion worse off the following year, compared to pre-election forecasts.

But the next two financial years would feature improvements of $9.5 billion and $2.2 billion.

Spending cuts would come from a hiring freeze and natural attrition of 41,000 Canberra-based federal public servants, opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume said.

The plan would bring the public service "back to a sustainable level, while protecting front-line services delivery and national security positions".

Mr Oliver said it was difficult to determine which side would deliver a better outcome for the budget deficit and net debt.

"You can argue in the short-term, the coalition could result in a lower level of budget deficits of public debt," he said.

"But in the longer term you could end up with more public debt under the coalition because of the nuclear plant."

The opposition's controversial plan to build seven nuclear reactors would set the budget back by $118 billion through to 2050.

The costings also include plans to cut at least two of the Labor government's off-budget investment funds, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund set up to build 30,000 new homes, and the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund.

Other cuts include scrapping student debt relief worth $16 billion, and unwinding Labor's decision to lower tax concessions for superannuation accounts with balances higher than $3 million.

Mr Richardson said the savings outlined in the coalition's costings were dependent on cutting public servant numbers.

He says that would be hard to achieve. 

Despite who wins when voters hit the polls on Saturday, Mr Richardson says a rejig of the budget is needed. 

"It is fat and lazy, filled with terrible taxes and stupid spending," he said.

"That's a dangerous combination for a nation that depends on China for prosperity and the US for security."