with debate centring on tax, infrastructure, energy and cost-of-living measures. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’s 2026–27 Federal Budget has generated a wide range of reactions from political parties, industry organisations and advocacy groups, reflecting contrasting views on tax policy, regional investment, energy spending and support for households. Matt Canavan criticised the Budget as a “broken promises” package that he said disadvantages regional Australia. He argued that reductions to infrastructure and agricultural funding, including cuts to the Inland Rail, the National Water Grid and regional communications programs, would increase costs and weaken productivity in rural communities. Senator Canavan also condemned Labor’s continued spending on net zero and renewable energy initiatives, claiming the additional $18.2 billion allocated to emissions reduction policies would contribute to inflation and rising living costs. Other organisations, including National Farmers' Federation, National Seniors Australia, Tas Farmers, Grain Producers Australia and NSW Farmers, offered a mixture of praise and criticism, focusing on issues such as agricultural investment, energy transition, business support and cost-of-living relief. The Budget has highlighted significant differences over how the federal government should balance economic management, environmental commitments and support for regional and rural Australia.