The cacophony of dire warnings from the Morrison Government over asylum seekers this week, as it sought to turn a defeat in the Parliament into a political victory, meant two major developments in the policy and politics of border protection have been largely overlooked.

The first involves an extraordinary story which, in any other week, would have (should have) dominated the news.

The second involves what has happened on the politics of asylum seekers on the side of politics that has shifted, rather than one that is going back to its usual schtick.

The first story is one reported all this week in the Financial Review about the awarding of work worth almost $500 million over 22 months to a company providing security for refugees at Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

As the paper noted, that is more than global accounting firm Ernst & Young has billed the government in five years.

And it's not just any company, but one they reported was registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island and to a post box in Singapore.

The Paladin group won the contract after a restricted tender and, according to the Financial Review, the Department of Home Affairs "took the highly unusual step of making an advance payment of around $10 million to Paladin, as the company did not have the money to begin the contract".

The paper reported that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has refused to release details, saying it would "cause damage to Australia's international relations with PNG".

It quoted a person "with knowledge of the tender process" saying "there was pressure put on the Department [now Home Affairs] by the PNG Government to ensure Paladin was appointed".

There is a lot more in the same vein.

Mr Dutton says he had "no sight" of the tender process and it was a matter for department officials.

Which makes next week's Senate Estimates hearings completely compelling.

Labor and the crossbench have the deal and its lack of transparency firmly in their sights.

Peter Dutton says he had "no sight" of the tender process. ( ABC News: Ian Cutmore )

It's worth noting how Labor shifted on policy

The story was this week, however, overshadowed by the dramas of the dying days of the 45th Parliament.

Yes, the Morrison Government's defeat on the floor of the House, on amendments to its own legislation, was historic.

But the significant change was Labor's decision to move on policy, knowing history suggests it could potentially cost it the federal election.

It's worth recording some of how this came to happen.

The seeds of the decision lay back in December, when amendments on processes for medical evacuations of asylum seekers originally proposed by independent senator Tim Storer (and which reflected those put in a private member's bill by MP Kerryn Phelps) were being considered in the Senate.

Labor's position was formed amid growing restlessness in the Caucus about the need to do something about offshore detention, but against the backdrop of both the looming ALP National Conference and the knowledge that the Government was at risk of losing a vote on the issue in the House of Representatives.

It's easy to forget how desperate the Government was to avoid that vote in December, and how much it was seen by Labor for its potency: at the least, as a symbol of the Coalition's weakening grip on power, and at most, the possible trigger for an early election.

While the amendments were the subject of much negotiation, the position ultimately reached was informed by Labor MPs believing they could not go to conference without some policy change on the asylum seeker issue.

Having backed the amendments in December, Labor would, on first glance, have little choice but to back them again when they returned in February.

But with both sides believing that independent MP Cathy McGowan might back away from the legislation, there were plenty in the senior ranks of the parliamentary party who saw the possibility of a glorious defeat on the issue — with Ms McGowan's vote meaning the amendments had no chance of success — as a major political relief.

"Why should we put our heads above the parapet on border protection for amendments that have no chance of success?" was a widespread sentiment.

Albo steps in

When Greens leader Richard Di Natale emerged on Tuesday morning to suggest the Greens would not be supporting Labor amendments to the Storer amendments — a suggestion at odds with the fact Greens MP Adam Bandt was at that very time negotiating on the amendments with Bill Shorten and others — the matter seemed settled. But it wasn't.

Labor stood its ground, with some minor compromises, and the bill passed through the House of Representatives.

So what happened?

Loading

It is instructive to look at the public record of who in Labor said what between the weekend and Tuesday.

First thing on Monday morning, Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese went on the radio to talk to ABC Radio National's Fran Kelly.

Mr Albanese has no portfolio responsibility for this area but was of course the other contender for the leadership after the 2013 election loss, and was also the rat-cunning manager of government business who kept the parliament going in the Gillard minority government years.

He is also one of the leading figures in the party's left. By all accounts, Mr Shorten and Mr Albanese have had a strained relationship since 2013.

This means "Albo" has not been at the centre of the Opposition's political strategies since 2013, having previously always been in the thick of it since entering parliament in 1996.

So his emergence on this issue was very significant, if not much noted at the time, in the onslaught of noise on the issue.

"What is essential", Mr Albanese told Kelly, "is that the status quo … is simply untenable".

"You can be tough on people smugglers, Fran, without being weak on humanity and hysteria."

This is no small matter for Labor

Labor's position had been laid down and was repeated by Mr Shorten in subsequent media appearances.

Mr Albanese subsequently worked hand in glove with manager of Opposition business Tony Burke in the chamber on Tuesday afternoon to get the legislation through.

And it was Mr Albanese who was out front of a media blitz on Wednesday explaining Labor's position, giving no less than seven interviews on the day.

It would be easy to say this was Mr Albanese pushing Mr Shorten into a corner.

But the media blitz would not have happened without the concurrence of the leader's office.

The significance of this beyond the issue of asylum seeker policy is that it seems Mr Shorten and Mr Albanese have found ways to work together.

The Opposition Leader, as he has learnt to do with other colleagues, has been prepared to give his old rival the running on an issue and, in the process, allow the will of the majority of the Caucus on this issue to prevail.

Albo is in from the cold. This is no small matter for either the strategic firepower or cohesiveness of Labor if it forms government after the next election.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.