Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I alert the Prime Minister to the government's latest estimate that spending on boat arrivals will fall by almost $2 billion over the forward estimates on their assumption that the boats will stop. Given that there were 17,270 illegal arrivals in 2012 and the trend is only going up, why is this promise any more believable than her promise to deliver a surplus?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First and foremost, the member raises the issue of the budget. We spent some time in question time last week, and indeed today, on issues associated with the budget and the inability of the opposition to recognise that there was a global financial crisis—the biggest economic disturbance since the great depression—and that this of course had implications for the global economy, put millions of people out of work around the world and has had implications, too, for the budget, writing down revenues by $160 billion.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Well, the question referred to budget surplus, and I am addressing that.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, a point of order on relevance: my question was about their forecast $2 billion cut in spending. She should answer that question.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook understands that abuses of points of order will not be tolerated.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Speaker, and I am addressing the question as it was initially asked. The member absolutely and specifically referred to a budget surplus. I am dealing with questions associated with the budget. If he has misdrafted his question that is a matter for him. I am making the point that if the member is genuinely interested in matters associated with the budget then he would of course, unlike those who proffer economic commentary on behalf of the opposition, have to recognise that we have lived through the biggest global economic event since the Great Depression, that around the world tens of millions of people have been thrown out of work, and that whilst we have come through that with low inflation and low unemployment, strong public finances, strong economic growth and a strong AAA rating, it has had implications for our budget, particularly a $160 billion write-off of revenue. As a result, the government is making decisions that continue to prioritise jobs and growth, because we believe that is important, and we will always put the jobs of working Australians first.

The member, as well as asking very generally about the budget, also specifically referred to budget matters and to asylum seekers and arrivals. I would remind the member that if he wants to look at these questions then it would pay to deal with the facts. I remind him that the government has returned about 1,000 people to—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you justify a $2 billion cut?

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook is warned!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has returned about 1,000 people to Sri Lanka since 13 August. That is many more than the Howard government ever did in as short a period of time. This is part of the way in which the government is addressing asylum seeker issues. Consequently the member, rather than waving around pieces of paper, may want to deal credibly with the facts in this debate.