Senator FURNER (Queensland) (16:27): I rise today to make a contribution to this debate about migration as well. I want to, firstly, indicate that it is one of those areas that I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this chamber and it is an area that can be highly charged and unfortunately at times politicised. Unfortunately at other times we see the creeping of xenophobia into the discussion. It is an area that needs to be critiqued in respect of what it is about. Before I get to the relevant points, I want to make comment on some of the previous contributions from speakers from the opposition. Firstly, Senator Scullion spoke about the Horn of Africa. There is a terrible situation happening over there. That is why we need sympathetic and reasonable management of how we protect our borders and deal with those poor souls who come from situations that we are aware of in the Horn of Africa. Senator Cash spoke about reports of headlines in the newspapers about what is happening in our caucus today. Yes, there was a caucus meeting today where methodically and reasonably the members of the Labor caucus worked through a process of discussing this issue. At the end of the day, we worked up and supported a solution that will see an outcome of presenting legislation to the House of Representatives and eventually to this chamber for a resolution on how we deal with migration. It really astounds me how not just Senator Cash—I do respect Senator Cash; she is a good performer from the opposition—but in general most of those people in the opposition here will tend to rely on the media. I guess that is why there is a campaign out there currently wanting some reform in the media. I will give just one example of why you cannot always rely upon the media. Just last week, I was quoted in the Age as having made some comments about the introduction of or the support for the Nauru solution. It was not even me in the photograph; it was a colleague. That clearly demonstrates that those opposite should never rely upon media headlines in the newspapers. We know that there has been a High Court decision in relation to our Malaysia solution, which has been dealt with. Subject to that decision, we need to work out future positions on handling migration and border protection. That is why, in caucus today, we had a discussion dealing with this particular issue. The High Court judgment established a new interpretation of migration law, which is why we need to work through a process of managing this. Legal advice from the Solicitor General cast further doubt over offshore processing of asylum seekers, wherever it might occur. It could be anywhere in the Pacific that we as a government decide in the future to deal with this issue. Indeed, talking about Nauru under the Howard government, the Solicitor-General has indicated that, most likely, that decision would have been invalid as well. This is an opportunity for the opposition to work with us in a bipartisan way to make sure we get a solution, because one day in the future they may be in a position where they might be in government and they will need to deal with this issue. Senator Back: We've dealt with it before. Senator FURNER: There is no use in playing politics on this issue, Senator Back. You need to deal with migration in a methodical, reasonable and responsible manner, rather than coming up with cheap slogans like, 'We will stop the boats.' You know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that I, as chair of the defence subcommittee, take a strong interest in defence matters. It was only last year, in July, that I was very fortunate to be on the parliamentary defence program at the border protection command in Darwin. On that day, it was actually the day on which the Prime Minister was on HMAS Bathurst, we went out into the harbour and saw firsthand how our hardworking, professional men and women on that ship deal with this issue. Low and behold, one of the opposition members of the House of Representatives, the member for Dickson, just had to ask the question. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out what the answer would have been to his question, which was: 'Why don't we just stop the boats? Why don't we just turn them around?' We are in the middle of the ocean somewhere, we cannot see land for miles around us, and here is the member for Dickson asking a stupid question like that. I knew what the answer would be, and sure enough it was: 'If you go around trying to stop the boats, the first sign of an Australian naval patrol boat will result in those people drilling holes in their hull, damaging their engines or do anything they can to make sure they are rescued.' We are dealing with desperate people. We are dealing with people who are coming from areas where they are persecuted, or where there is war or conflict, and you have these grubby people-smugglers getting them over here in any possible way, shape or form, whether it be in a leaky ex-fishing boat, whatever the case may be, regardless of its condition. We all watched, sadly, on our TVs last year as SIEV221 smashed up against the rocks on Christmas Island. I do not want to see that scene again and I am sure everyone in this chamber feels the same. That is why we need to work together on a solution to this issue. Regardless of what the opposition does when this legislation comes into the parliament, it needs to reflect on its position, because at some stage in the future it will need to deal with this. It is not a case of coming up with cheap political slogans such as: 'We will stop the boats,' or 'We will pick up the boat phone and ring someone in Canberra who will deal with this issue.' You need to work through a humane solution and deal with it using a logical process. I will focus on Nauru for a moment. We know that, as a result of that solution, somewhere around 60 per cent of those who were resettled from Nauru were resettled in Australia, and that a whopping 95 per cent of people resettled from Nauru ended up in Australia or New Zealand. It was not an outcome that worked, despite what those opposite would have you believe. It did not work. The reality is that 95 per cent of those people were resettled in our country and in New Zealand. We know that, not long ago, the member for Cook and also Mr Abbott visited Nauru and inspected what is a dilapidated migration centre. They came up with the view that it would have a significantly lower cost than the Malaysia solution. We know that is also not true; they have got it wrong. It will not be cheap or effective. It will be more costly, because of the changes that will need to be made on Nauru. That is why we as a government will not consider Nauru has a possibility in the legislation we introduce to deal with this issue. In fact, the highest level of Department of Immigration and Citizenship estimates are that the coalition's Nauru plan would cost taxpayers $980 million, almost $1 billion, in operational costs alone. That is $1 billion that could be spent elsewhere, on health or education, rather than refurbishing a centre that is basically inoperative. Once again Mr Abbott needs to decide, for the sake of the coalition as an alternative government, to work with us on this issue. Migration to this country has always been an issue. I remember, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, when the Vietnamese boat people arrived on our shores. I still dread to remind myself of some of the redneck statements such as, 'Why don't we get the Navy out there and blow 'em out of the water.' I am certain that is not what the opposition is advocating, but it certainly stirred up xenophobia in our community. We need to make sure that those sorts of comments and views are oppressed and that we deal with this issue as a government—and as a government we can. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ): Order! The time for this debate has concluded.