A decided ennui has overtaken Canberra, or at least the Press Gallery. There’s a general sense that politics at the moment is truly wretched, a Sisyphean ordeal. Just as Labor is apparently condemned to roll (or perhaps rickroll), a policy rock up a hill, only for it to roll down again, and the task commence anew, so the media must exhaustively cover, and comment upon, every nuance of the repetition, over and over.
Clash of the titans it ain’t. And pace Albert Camus, there are, alas, no absurd heroes in this building. There’s plenty of absurdity, yes, but heroes? Sorry, we’re all out of them.
So the carbon pricing package debate, over ostensibly the most important piece of legislation to be debated this term, has been reduced to scenic backdrop. Instead, Labor and the Coalition are going hammer and tongs over several thousand asylum seekers — a diversion of the national attention span so manifestly disproportionate that it would be comical if there wasn’t, in the possibility of people drowning trying to get here, a deadly serious policy issue that is being furiously ignored by everyone except those with the responsibility of actually developing and implementing policy.
Everyone else — refugee advocates, the Greens, the media, Labor backbenchers, and most of all the Opposition — can play dress-ups in the clothes of compassion while the government is stuck with the task of trying to work out how to stop people drowning themselves trying to get resettled here.
For Labor, perhaps the better mythic metaphor at the moment is that of Prometheus, eternally chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver eaten over and over again. It was an eagle that feasted on his liver in the original; a turkey would be more apt round here. That’s Labor’s lot for now and the immediate future. There’s to be no escape, no salvation, so there must simply be acceptance. Even a leadership change now would be useless.
In that regard, at least, if in few others, Julia Gillard is the ideal leader. She may not be much chop as a political tactician but her resilience is impressive. No matter what body blows strike her Prime Ministership, she dusts herself off and keeps going. Keeps going the wrong way, many critics inside and outside the party insist, but on she goes, pushing that rock up the hill, certain in the knowledge that it will roll straight back down again, if only because it has every other time she’s done it in the last twelve months.
One doubts if, like Camus’ absurd hero, Gillard has found contentment in the futility of her task. But she works away at a policy agenda anyway, and a solid one — more solid than Kevin Rudd’s, although he had the excuse that the GFC substituted keeping the economy functional for any ambitious reform program.
The government’s proposed asylum seeker policy is by no means ideal. We shouldn’t be keeping people in detention unnecessarily, we should be resettling far more people than we do, and we should be providing a lot more funding for the UNHCR. But I can’t see another policy around at the moment that better marries the twin goals of fulfilling our moral obligations to assist people fleeing persecution and discouraging them from risking their lives.
It’s not the best policy option by any stretch, but it’s the least worst one currently on offer. There’s nothing particularly heroic about prosecuting the case for such a policy, but as in a lot of other policy areas, the government’s fate is to doggedly pursue second-tier policies that only have the single redeeming feature of not being nearly as bad as what their opponents are offering.

108 thoughts on “Politics is a Sisyphean ordeal, and Gillard’s ideal for it”
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 9:53 amKnackers…
Probably doesn’t require a wholesale re-write of the Act … although going by the size of the thing that seems long overdue.
The most significant change is purely administrative – separating the assessment from the compliance stages of the process … this enables front-line staff (well trained and well-paid) to actually assist those who make applications…. what information is required, what would help, what can be substituted, corroborating material etc They are responsible for actually preparing the application in co-operation with the applicant. That then gets reviewed by someone else and the boxes get ticked or not.
Only then can people like DIAC’s Sandi Logan actually describe applicants as “clients”. At the moment the only “client” DIAC is serving is us, purportedly.
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 10:31 amWhen is the Canberra Press Gallery going to learn.
The Coalition is losing on the debate over Asylum Seekers. So what do they do. They start “briefing” the press over Kevin Rudd counting the numbers. Then the press spins that one Labor backbencher refuses to deny it. This because in the grab of actuality it is clear the backbencher in question is attacking the press for listening to baseless rumour.
So Canberra Press Gallery here is a reality check. Labor will change leaders only when they are certain they are going to improve their position and fast. There is at least a 50% chance of an election being called within a week of such a move, given past Independent and Green Statements. With polls as low as they are anyone that thinks Labor wants to go to an election within weeks needs professional mental help.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 11:07 am[“The Coalition is losing on the debate over Asylum Seekers. So what do they do. They start “briefing” the press over Kevin Rudd counting the numbers. “]
LOL!
The Coalition have been winning the debate on Asylum Seekers since the boats started rolling in. More Boats means More Votes.
This issue isn’t going away for Labor until they stop the boats. I know it. You know it. Gillard knows it.
She can pick up the phone to Nauru or face the electoral consequences.
SBH
September 22, 2011 at 11:20 amTough Tiddies.
there’s that great western traditional christian values on display again
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 11:24 amTTH
Try as you might you cannot change facts.
Fact: I as a supporter of On Shore processing am going to get what I want. You are not.
Fact: part of the reason for this is because Tony Abbott is voting against Off Shore processing.
You have a problem with the number of boats coming. Take it up with Tony Abbot for voting against Off Sore and therefore for On Shore and the numbers that come.
I do not have a problem.
You do.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm[“Fact: I as a supporter of On Shore processing am going to get what I want. You are not. “]
For a little while… then it will be back to Nauru.
What excuses are you going to be making up when the boaties start burning down detention centres again? Have you got any pre-written already?
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 12:46 pmTTH
Create more jobs. Train more staff properly to reduce processing times.
The same concept as reducing hospital waiting times.
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 12:53 pmTTH
To put it a bit more clearly for you. You have to be in a detention centre to riot in one.
The only way to stop that is to house people in detention for as short a time as possible.
It is also cheaper as the sooner out of detention the sooner the refugees fleeing torture and death start paying for themselves rather than the taxpayers paying for them.
Policeman MacCruiskeen
September 22, 2011 at 1:58 pmMr Knack (09:38), I want to address your comment that:
“…It has been my observation when dealing with DIAC that the greater majority are very good people, doing a very hard job, at very low levels of pay for the enormity of the consequences that their decisions can have. They are not well trained…”
What you leave out of the equation is the institutional culture of DIAC. It is my experience, having worked in child protection, that in such areas of ‘human services’ as child protection, DIAC and others where significant discretionary power is accorded to decision makers who are inadequately trained, that a highly defensive culture accretes over time. This is compounded by a process of internal advancement whereby inadequately trained people act as supervisors and ‘managers’ to junior staff. This results in an institutional culture where, once a decision has been made, nothing at all is allowed to reverse that decision. Reversal by any other process than appeal to judicial authority or tribunal is tantamount to a statement of lack of confidence in the process by which the original decision was taken. Calling for reconsideration of decisions even when based on objective evidence is taken as personal critique which is a sure fire way to the exit door.
The grounds for the exercise of discretionary authority need to be made abundantly clear. I believe within DIAC, as in child protection, that decisions can be made ‘on the balance of probability’. It is inappropriate, in my view, for underpaid, over worked and under trained staff to be allowed to exericse what is quite literally magisterial authority (that is, the capacity to make grave decisions ‘on the balance of probability’) in secret.
Consider, for a moment, the parallels between making ‘balance of probability’ decisions within DIAC about dark skinned people without ID arriving in boats in the atmosphere of post 9/11 paranoia and Australian child protection workers making ‘balance of probability’ decisions about Aboriginal parents constituting a risk of harm to their children in a two century old culture of racist hostility towards Aboriginal people. The ‘balance of probability’ in both cases tends strongly towards the ‘probability’ that people with the wrong skin colour and cultural are indeed on the wrong side of the scales.
More training, more pay, better tertiary education but above all a massive culture change are required before these sorts of structural biases within public administration can be removed. In the meantime one way to do this is to subject DIAC and any other public admin exercising such grave authority to the greatest scrutiny. This requires permanent criticsm and ongoing open review. In the case of DIAC, that means onshore processing and nothing less.
Policeman Mac (resting pending internal investigations review) trans Mrs Walleye Mac.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 2:03 pm[“To put it a bit more clearly for you. You have to be in a detention centre to riot in one.
The only way to stop that is to house people in detention for as short a time as possible.
It is also cheaper as the sooner out of detention the sooner the refugees fleeing torture and death start paying “]
What do you think should be done with boaties who have deemed not to be refugee’s…. once… twice… three-times… appeal after appeal after appeal… yet they won’t accept the referee’s decision?
We need a new system where you can only appeal once, and then if found not to be a refugee boarded on the next flight out.