Labor can’t justify its nothing-to-see change

Crossbench senators celebrate as the medivac bill is passed yesterday.

Labor’s forced arguments and justi­fications for its change on borde­r protection laws are full of inconsistencies, contradictions and illogicalities.

The opposition is simultan­eous­ly trying to claim victory for change and argue there is no change; justifying essential ­medical treatment to people in Aust­ralia’s care on Nauru and Manus but denying such access to anyone who arrives there tomor­row; and declaring there is no ­difference betwee­n the Coalition’s border protection policy and Labor’s.

It’s no wonder then that every Labor frontbencher sent out ­yesterday, including the near-­invisible immigration spokes­man Shayne Neumann, via statement, had difficulty mounting a credible political or policy argument dispatching what has become a major headache for Bill Shorten.

The task is all the harder because Labor has already promised to dump temporary protection visas and can’t deny a history of broken hand-on-the-heart promises to turn back boats and not change laws.

Labor’s central difficulty is the clearly false claim that nothing has changed — yet ALP frontbenchers have been lauding the “historic” defeat of the Morrison government because the legislation was changed.

Undeniably, ministerial discretion and power has been diluted because Labor, the Greens and emotionally driven independents wanted to do it in the name of providin­g healthcare for people who needed it.

In trying to hide that change from voters and people-smugglers, Labor’s official line yesterday was that the changes just “codified what was happening already”.

Given the rapturous welcome to the “huge win for refugees” by the Greens, independents such as Kerry­n Phelps and refugee advoc­acy groups who are pushing even further to bring about the end of offshore processing, this Labor claim is palpably false and pointless.

In reference to the 900 people who have been sent from Nauru for medical treatment, Labor defence spokesman Richard Marles said the change, “in essence, codifies what this government has already been doing” and Left leader ­Anthony Albanese said all they did was “codify what the government itself says is already happening”.

So, are they really saying Labor created a huge problem for itself in weakening border protection in the eyes of people-smugglers and their victims against security advic­e when medical transfers were already being made?

The superimposing of a justification of wanting to treat people “humanely” while maintaining “strong border protection” after the failure of a rushed and flawed political tactic last December is perhaps the greatest contradiction.

The Opposition Leader told parliament the change was to bring compassion to people who needed medical treatment and others said denial of medical treatment was an unacceptable punishment for asylum-seekers.

Yet yesterday’s central defence on security grounds was that this humane access to urgent medical care was “ring-fenced” and wouldn’t apply to any asylum-seeker who lands on Nauru later.

Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek also argued change was necessary ­because the Coalition had left asylum­-seekers for too long on Nauru — the same asylum-seeker­s the Labor government put there in an effort to stop the 800 illega­l boat arrivals on its watch.