Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:23): I think some parts of that question are probably more appropriately directed to Senator Lundy, because I note that there were a number of policy assertions in that question. I would make this point: if the opposition are concerned about what has occurred in relation to asylum seeker policies and border protection policies, they should reflect on the fact that they stood in the way of changes in this parliament for months and months and months, because they are not interested in resolving the issue. They are only interested in creating a policy— Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister is not being directly relevant to the question asked. The question was specifically in relation to the budget assumptions and whether there would be additional appropriation to deal with the substantial underestimate of refugee arrivals. She has not borne on that question at all. It is entirely within her portfolio. She should be brought to the question. Senator Jacinta Collins: Mr President, on the point of order, once again Senator Brandis focuses on just one element of the question. Senator Wong was quite correct in highlighting that there were a number of broader policy assertions within the question, but she is seeking to answer the relevant components for her portfolio and should be allowed to continue to do so. The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister has been going 35 seconds. I believe the minister is addressing the question. The minister has one minute and 25 seconds remaining to address the question. Senator WONG: The question does come consequent upon passage of the appropriation bill, which I think passed the chamber yesterday. I think the senator who asked me the question participated, possibly at length, in that debate and asked similar questions of the representing minister at that time. It is the case that the bills appropriate total funding of the figure that the senator just quoted at me—in which case, one wonders why she needed to ask me the question—of $1.675 billion to implement the Houston report for costs associated with IMAs, and the funding in the appropriations is consistent with the update that was handed down in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I think the $668 million can be broken down to a number of components: an increase in the humanitarian program to 20,000 places per annum, the increase in the family stream of the permanent migration program to 194 places per annum, regional capacity building initiatives to support government and international organisations to strengthen the region's capacity to manage migration, capital costs associated with the regional processing centres, and I can continue in the next supplementary— (Time expired)