Reviving a national risk will hurt ALP

The medivac bill is an electoral gift for the Coalition.

Crossbench MP Kerryn Phelps passes a piece of paper to Bill Shorten during a division on debate of the medivac bill on February 12. Picture: AAP

Politics or, more to the point, governance is a world away from the hypothetical debates of a university seminar. An understanding of how different it is to deal in real issues and actual consequences — compared with the semantics and posturing of academic or media gabfests — is what sorts true political practitioners from poseurs.

While they might touch on the same issues, the chasm is as wide as that between the national ­security committee of cabinet and a Q&A panel (two vastly dissimilar forums with which I have some experience). This contrast between the pragmatic and the pretentious is evident in many ­national debates but it is never more evident than in the frus­tratingly repetitive border protection saga.

What is enormously frustrating and mind-numbingly depressing is that despite the crushing impact of reality in the form of sunken vessels, splintered hulls, crammed detention centres, desperate families and a haunting image of one little white coffin, there still are too many who treat the border protection issue as an undergraduate workshop. We might expect this from public broadcasters and academics ­because the theoretical world is one they struggle to escape. And we might forgive it in young journalists who have not learned the hard lessons of Christmas Island, SIEV X, Baxter or Nauru.

What is unforgivable is the way experienced reporters refuse to learn. And the way activists turned novice politicians — Kerryn Phelps, Derryn Hinch and Rebekha Sharkie — use their parliamentary leverage to make hugely naive and risky changes to national policy. Not for these MPs, ever, the heavy responsibility of executive power — rather, opportunities to claim a profile, accept plaudits and leave others to deal with consequences.

What remains inexplicable is how Labor, which has previously resisted warnings and made horrible choices with deadly consequences, could venture down this perilous path, again. This is an ­opposition whose frontbench ­includes three former immigration ministers — Chris Bowen, Brendan O’Connor and Tony Burke — who each saw illegal boat arrivals and tragic asylum-seeker deaths on their watch.

Yet they have meddled. From opposition. For what?

Let us be clear here — there was not a problem in need of fixing. Obviously there is a dire need to resettle or repatriate the last 1000 asylum-seekers and refugees stuck in the limbo of Nauru and Manus Island. Still, the activist ­exaggerations of various medicos cannot change the fact that extensive medical services are provided at both locations and, by Labor’s own admission, close to 900 people already have been relocated to Australian on the pretext of seeking extra healthcare.

Many of us have lamented for years the slow progress in resettling refugees but, to be fair, not only have refugees been reluctant to take up options such as Cam­bodia or permanent residency in Papua New Guinea but the ­Coalition (under Malcolm Turnbull) managed to strike and implement an enormously generous resettlement deal with the US.

After a decade of trauma — ­instigated when Labor abolished the Pacific solution in 2008, leading to more than 50,000 asylum-seeker arrivals — there are only about 420 people on Nauru and 600 on Manus Island to be ­resettled. Instead of co-operating with efforts to resolve these outstanding cases, Labor has acted to make it easier for them to come to Australia on medical grounds.

No one can be certain such an arrangement will reanimate the people-smuggling trade. But anyone with a comprehensive understanding of the issue knows this is a palpable risk.

Under John Howard, Australia found a way to stop what always has the potential of being a never-ending people-smuggling trade; a short voyage from Java to Christmas Island can be marketed to any desperate, poor or per­secuted customer as a certain path to the freedom and prosperity of a Western liberal democracy with universal healthcare, generous wel­fare and free education. It is hardly surprising there are many paying customers.

Still, no matter the success of Howard’s response, Labor argued it was too harsh and scrapped it, conjuring 800 boats and costing at least 1200 lives and $16 billion. It has taken extraordinary effort and resolve from the Coalition since 2013 to kill the trade a second time.

Critics — including Labor and its press gallery supporters — said the dilemma was insoluble, yet our borders are now secure, Australia is taking record numbers of refugees under the humanitarian program, 19 detention centres have been closed, offshore detainees live free within local communities and no children are detained.

There was no reason to mess with this but Labor, the independents and Greens have made it easier for those held offshore to get to Australia. Perhaps others will now see the journey as worth the risk.

Labor places great store on how its amended laws apply only to those already detained, excluding new arrivals. But governments can bring anyone they choose to the mainland and Labor has demonstrated its willingness to yield.

Opposition immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann tried to tell 7.30’s Leigh Sales that a Labor government would be ­unmovable: “I want to give a message, can I say, Leigh, to those criminal cartels, if you put people on boats, those people will never settle. They will never come to Australia under a Labor government. Our position is really clear.”

Journalists such as The Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy and ABC opinionista Barrie Cass­idy have been eager to echo this line, even accusing the government of dishonesty for not accepting the efficacy of Labor’s pro­nouncements. (It is worth point­ing out that leftist journalists have endorsed Labor’s missteps at every turn of this saga — they ­endorsed the abolition of the ­Pacific solution, parroted the “push factors” excuse, swallowed the line that turnbacks were not possible and endorsed claims the Coalition’s promises to fix the problem were fanciful). Yet having run down so many blind alleys and getting it so obviously wrong, they are lining up to back the Labor line again. Think of the absurdity of Neumann’s argument.

This “really clear” declaration that apart from those already ­detained, other arrivals will “never settle” in Australia is exactly what Labor declared about those now on Manus Island and Nauru. Labor has acted to make entry to Australia more accessible to those it promised would never set foot in Australia while it promises it would never let the next influx get to Australia.

Not only do elements of the media take them seriously but they expect people-smugglers to do the same. Clearly, if Labor wins the election, smugglers will test their mettle. Buckle up.

Which brings us to political self-harm. Labor has exposed its greatest political weakness — an open wound that festers more than its record on fiscal mismanagement — and it has played into a core Coalition strength. Scott Morrison will not believe his luck and Liberal strategists who were busy scheming to revive the relevance of border protection as an issue can move on to other challenges.

The Coalition can dust off its 2004 election slogan; instead of who do you trust to keep interest rates down, they need only ask who you trust to keep borders ­secure.

If Labor really thought this was a humanitarian dilemma, it could have planned to resolve it in three months after winning the election. Instead it has embraced a policy dictated by Phelps, a neophyte ­independent. Apart from everything else, this makes Bill Shorten look weak.

Perhaps Labor was overly ­excited by humiliating the government on the floor of the House of Representatives; maybe it acted too hastily last year when the emotive issue of children in detention was attracting attention; perhaps it bought the love-media spin that voter sentiment had turned on borders; or, then again, there must be a chance the socialist Left forced Shorten to adopt a position against his political ­instincts. Whatever the reason, this is an election-year pivot point.

The parlour-game posturing on border protection has produced a policy shift that could have real-world consequences. In this sense it is a bit like Mark Latham’s “troops home by Christmas” ­mistake — a triumph of jejune good intentions over clear-eyed wisdom.

It could have horrible humanitarian consequences. It will have a significant political effect.