Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 9:23:38 to 9:29:10
Discussion regarding the discrepancy between PBO costings and government policy on the humanitarian intake baseline and its fiscal impact.
Topics: Government spending, Social services
Speakers: Hon Jane Hume, Dr Steven Kennedy, Senator Karen Grogan, Speaker 52, Eliza Strapp, Blair Exell, Interjection
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Excellent. That statement contradicts the information from Minister Burke's office to the ABC that there was a reduction in the number of places uh of 6,250 next financial year and that the increase was always meant to be temporary. >> That's a contradiction of that. Yeah,
>> Senator, I I don't have that statement from Mr. Burke's off Mr. Burke's office, so I can't comment on that.
>> Well, look, maybe Dr. Kennedy can do this because he's I know he's very familiar with budgets. We've worked on I'm wondering perhaps Dr. Kennedy if you can explain if it was always government policy to maintain the intake at 20,000 why a PBO costing that was obtained by the coalition on the 7th of September shows that a reduction in the humanitarian intake of to 13,750 would raise zero revenue.
You want me to comment on the PBO costing?
>> Well, if it raises zero revenue, if the PBO tell us that it raises zero revenue, surely that means that it is already the budget baseline.
well, I'll do I shouldn't do a theoretical, but I'll do a theoretical. If presumably, um when we're thinking about the costings of migration, as you know, well, we're thinking about the composition of a number. So I guess if in absolute terms that's what the PBO costing is. I don't I don't know actually. I'd have to ask Treasury precisely whether their costing is exactly the same as the PBO. But normally the reasons costings are changing within a migration program are because we're switching the composition between say humanitarian and skills or those types of things. Um but in absolute terms honestly I don't know um um whether the um our costings are done in exactly the same way as the PBOS's but I I don't know I'd have to you'd have just check Treasury Treasury would do um I'll just confirm with Mr. X Treasury would do the costing on the composition of different types of
migrants. So this was obviously a costing done specifically on the humanitarian refugee and humanitarian intake. In 2025 there was an election costing report that put the cost of a cut from 20,000 to 13,750 for the humanitarian refugee intake at around $7 billion. Yet the PBO costing when we requested um when we requested one on the 7th of September shows that a reduction in humanitarian intake to 13,700 would be zero revenue which implies that it was already at 13,750.
>> I'm just not aware Senator Hume. Um um but as I said, you're very welcome to address directly to Treasury and they obviously will see this um how the migration program was costed and how um humanitarian migrants are being costed or any changes.
>> Okay. So, this sounds like a $7 billion decision that was made via text message from the prime minister that is yet to go through, as Miss Strap has just said, any of the appropriate processes.
>> Well, there's two things. There's the government's ongoing policy and then uh in the usual budget processes, the migration program is remove is is um is is reviewed as as it's an annual program. So I presume that's what
>> MR that is exactly what I meant is what referring to that that is exactly what that is exactly what I meant.
>> So each year and it was the same previously there's a decision made about um uh the permanent program the composition of it etc. And that is um uh reflected into the budget. what's in the baseline to be honest um I can't recall exactly what Treasury puts in the baseline beyond that decision but you can certainly address that question to
>> so
>> they have to make a decision about a baseline of course but I don't know
>> for the budget yes which sounds like it was 13,750 and then there was what seems to be a captain's call to increase that next year to 20,000 to keep the level at 20,000 which is a $7 billion decision that seems to have been made on the run that was the prime minister's decision that contradicts his own minister's
>> Look, you you
>> so there was no discussion with you obviously, Dr. Kennedy. There was no discussion with anyone in PMNC before the prime minister sent that text.
>> I think the prime minister articulated the government's ongoing policy and then the precise costings that are in the budget. We should put that to the
I think we will put it to the treasurer.
>> Thank you, Senator Hume. And on that note, thank you, Dr. Kennedy. Okay. >> Appreciate your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, thank you, Senator. Your insights
>> I really, um, wanted to make a kind of comprehensive, uh, outline of my views about lots of things. Missed my chance.
>> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We will now break for dinner. We will return with PM and C uh after the dinner