Kerryn Phelps and Richard Di Natale help to strip bare Labor’s border policy weakness

Bill Shorten has been wounded by Kerryn Phelps and Richard Di Natale.

Who would have thought the Liberal Party would owe a debt of gratitude to Kerryn Phelps? The independent MP who snatched the prized seat of Wentworth last year has been thought of as a major irritant to the Coalition — a green Left activist masquerading as a centrist and capitalising on a protest vote to push the government into minority.

But now she has done Scott Morrison a huge favour; she has exposed Bill Shorten and the Labor Party on the central issue of border protection. If not for Phelps, Liberal strategists would now be wondering how they could convince voters that border protection was still a relevant issue at the upcoming election.

LIVE: Follow the latest developments in our PoliticsNow blog

The Bill proposed by the Wentworth independent and the inept way Labor has handled it has exposed the reality of this issue — we now see Labor’s border protection frailty stripped bare. For years Shorten has worked hard to demonstrate he could be strong on borders and not have policy dictated to him by his own party’s Socialist Left but now his policy is being written for him by the likes of Phelps and Greens Leader Richard Di Natale.

In a debate that has focused on how laws could be changed to give two doctors the greatest say on allowing refugees into this country, the real political damage for Shorten is that he seems beholden to two doctors — Phelps and Di Natale. Labor is exposed on its historical border policy weakness and, for the first time since the height of the royal commission into unions, the Labor Leader has suffered a serious hit on his authority.

Let us be clear about the Bill before parliament. It is not necessary. It was proposed by MPs — Phelps, fellow independent Andrew Wilkie and Greens MP Adam Bandt — who oppose offshore processing.

The Bill was passed by the Senate last year in a bid to ensure all children were removed from Nauru. Given all the refugee children are now off Nauru, the main impetus for the Bill is redundant.

The argument now revolves around a “medical crisis” in Phelps’ words — but this is political rhetoric rather than fact. Medical services are provided at Manus Island and Nauru and refugees are sent elsewhere (almost 900 have been brought to Australia) when additional medical care is deemed necessary.

It is clear from her comments that Phelps’ true aim is to bring all those held offshore to Australia. “We know that there are just over 1000 refugees on Manus Island and Nauru,” she said on the weekend. “Of those, about a third are considered so unwell that they cannot be treated on Manus Island or Nauru, so that’s just several hundred people, they would be triaged for seriousness, so the most serious cases would come to Australia first for urgent treatment, and then other people as the need arose and as Australia’s resources were able to accommodate them.”

It is not surprising that the former Australian Medical Association president would look to undo offshore processing or that the Greens would work hand in glove with her. What is surprising is that Labor could get itself into a situation where it has voted for these measures already in the Senate and is now desperately trying to negotiate a way out.

This is not a theoretical discussion; we know what happens. The last time Labor said they could weaken border protection without reducing security we saw 800 boats bring 50,000 people so that detention centres were built and filled in every state and in two offshore locations while 1200 people drowned at sea. Forget the gormless politics of this contrived parliamentary debate, what is most troubling is that a party of government would trifle with such matters of life and death.

After security briefings Shorten has proposed amendments to the Bill to increase ministerial powers and limit it to current detainees — an attempt to please everyone and save face. But this will please no-one and just proves Labor was wrong to support the Bill last year in the Senate. To prove he has the strength to lead this country, Shorten should forget amendments, admit his error, and oppose this Bill.

Yet bizarrely — and perhaps motivated by what a disaster this has become for Labor — the Greens have rejected the ALP’s amendments as undercutting the Bill’s intent. So the Bill might be doomed after all, which would be a good thing for the nation’s border security and a great relief for Shorten.

* UPDATE: Shorten decided instead to do a deal with the Greens and Independents, effectively outsourcing and weakening Labor’s and the nation’s border protection. This humiliated the government on the floor of parliament but has gifted the Coalition a major election issue — Labor demonstrating it is softer on border security and raising legitimate questions about how much further it would go in government.