Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Wong. I refer to the release of MYEFO, which confirms an additional $1.2 billion budget blowout in immigration. This takes the total budget blowout in immigration to over $6 billion under Labor since 2009-10. Given that the government budgeted for just 450 arrivals per month when they handed down their budget in May, and the reality is that on average Australia is receiving 2,000 arrivals per month, when will the government be upfront with the Australian people and disclose their revised estimated monthly arrivals, so that Australians know the true extent of Labor's budget blowout?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to answer those aspects of the question which relate to the Finance portfolio. I suspect some of the aspects of the question relate to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. It is the case that in the midyear review there is an upward estimates variation of in excess of $1 million, $1.1 billion in 2012-13. The estimates variation includes the increase in actual arrivals to date, transitioning down to a lower level by the end of 2012-13 and staying there over the forwards. I should indicate, because I think Senator Cash referred to this, that this figure does not include all of the costs for managing the response to the Houston report. Some of those are measures which are reported elsewhere. There is also in the midyear review an indication of the increased direct costs to DIAC of the increases to the humanitarian program of an additional 6,250 places per annum and increases to the family reunion stream of the permanent migration program.

In terms of the expenses by function table, there is an increase of half a billion dollars in 2012-13. The $1.1 billion includes increases to functions other than DIAC—for example, healthcare provided to asylum seekers gets picked up under health spending and the table also does not include as yet—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order in relation to direct relevance. My question was actually in relation to when the government will come clean with the Australian people and tell them what their revised estimates are in relation to monthly arrivals. I notice that in the answer the minister gave, she did refer to the fact that the government has revised upwards the number of arrivals and I would like the minister to state for the record and answer the question: what is the exact number the monthly arrivals have been revised up to?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Senator Wong once again has been dealing with the question as it was asked. At the commencement of her question, Senator Cash referred to MYEFO and a purported $1.2 billion immigration blow out. It is these issues that Senator Wong is addressing. She also indicated she would seek to answer the question with respect to those matters that related to her finance portfolio and is indeed seeking to do so.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: as Senator Cash pointed out, the minister has conceded there has been an upward revision. She was asked what it was. If it is conceded there is an upward revision then the minister must be in a position to tell the Senate what the upward revision is, and that was the whole point of the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order. The minister is addressing the question and still has 14 seconds remaining.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been upfront about the increased costs, which have resulted in great part from the difficulties the government has had in getting legislation in relation to this issue through the parliament. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why the government deliberately omitted the capital and operational costs of Nauru and Manus Island in MYEFO, estimated at approximately $2.9 billion, as well as the full cost of increasing the refugee intake to 20,000, at more than $50,000 per place? Given that Nauru has now demanded that Australia pay up to $90 million over five years as insurance against the cost of housing up to 1,500 asylum seekers, why does the government continued to shroud in secrecy the true costs of the budget blowouts in the immigration portfolio?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the second aspect of the question, I did in fact answer that in the primary question. Referring to the direct cost in relation to the humanitarian program, I indicated that there was a direct cost attributed to DIAC, but that additional costs for those places are also appropriated to other functions in the budget. I did actually answer the second part of that.

In relation to the first part, which was about capital costs, we were asked this question in the press conference and we made clear that we will be publishing the figures for Nauru and Manus. Currently those negotiations are on foot and it is not appropriate—

An opposition senator: They're always on foot.

Well, it is not appropriate for governments in the middle of commercial negotiations to make public the precise nature of the capital costs that are anticipated. The Treasurer said in the press conference that when those costs are finalised they will be made public.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is it not true that as a result of the continuing blowouts to Labor's border protection budget, the only surplus to be delivered by a Labor government next year will be in the bank accounts of people smugglers courtesy of Julia Gillard's failed border protection policies?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a somewhat tasteless supplementary question, Senator. That question really goes to the issues of immigration policy and should be directed to the appropriate minister. It shows the attitude of those opposite who are willing to be completely and destructively negative in this policy area, and in every policy area. They are always willing to trash the national interest if they think they can make a political win out of it, if they think they can make a political point. Your agenda and your attitude on this, Senator, is demonstrated by the questions you ask on this issue.